Commons:Deletion requests/2024/01/04

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

January 4[edit]

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:Brigitte Helm.jpg[edit]

This promo photo of German actress Brigitte Helm was uploaded to Europeana by some Lithuanian museum, which claims the image is in the PD. The image is signed "Kiesel", which is most likely German photo studio "Atelier Kiesel" from Berlin, active in the 1920s and 1930s (accd. to a Google and Google Books search).

For this image to be in the PD, the author (here: the photographer) needs to have died at least 70 years ago. But we don't really know who the photographer is (probably a man or woman named "Kiesel"), and the photographer's year of death is stated neither on Europeana nor here.

This means we cannot really say if this photograph is actually in the PD as claimed or not. A photographer who was active in the 1920s might well have lived beyond 1948, which would mean this image is still protected. The file therefore should be deleted per the precautionary principle. Rosenzweig τ 14:19, 2 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Ymblanter (talk) 16:39, 10 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Brigitte Helm.jpg[edit]

This file was initially tagged by EurekaLott as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: Public domain in the U.S., but under copyright in Germany. See notice at Category:Metropolis (film). Rosenzweig τ 01:59, 4 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Keep I converted this into a regular deletion request (instead of speedy) because [1] suggests that this is not a frame of the actual film, but a photograph taken on the set. For Metropolis, which was shot in 1925/26, the still photographer was de:Horst von Harbou, who died in 1953. So his photographs are in the public domain in Germany now. I could not yet find a direct attribution of this photograph to Horst von Harbou, but it is very likely his work. The previously deleted Brigitte Helm file (see above) is another photo btw. --Rosenzweig τ 02:04, 4 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sorry for the confusion. Upon reflection, I also think this image is from a Harbou photo but can't find a good attribution either. On the other hand, there are very similar Harbou photos of the same scene here: [2]https://www.mutualart.com/Artwork/METROPOLIS-BY-FRITZ-LANG---PHOTOGRAPHS-F/9D7F07C2D6E0D666 and here [3]https://www.akg-images.com/archive/-2UMDHUNDDJJW.html. I'd like to post both on the site, assuming they fall with the guidelines. Bixly777 (talk) 18:44, 4 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As long as you have a solid attribution of the photograph to Horst von Harbou, any of the Metropolis photographs should be ok. They were taken while the film was shot in 1925 and 1926, and most likely published as promotional material for the film (which premiered on 10 January 1927) in 1927 or 1928, so they should be OK in the US as well. Some behind the scenes shots were perhaps not published until 2003 or later, but then they're also in the public domain in the US per {{PD-US-unpublished}}. Anything by Horst von Harbou first published after 1928 and before 2003 is most likely not OK in the US (and therefore also for Wikimedia Commons) though, those will have to wait. --Rosenzweig τ 21:01, 4 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
After an extensive search, I found a couple of Harbou photos very similar to this, but nothing that exactly matches the photo in question. Go ahead and delete. Thanks. Bixly777 (talk) 18:55, 5 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 Przelijpdahl (talk · contribs)[edit]

This photo and its crops are uploaded with the {{PD-BrazilGov}} license. Per Commons:Copyright_rules_by_territory/Brazil this template is for works published or commissioned by a Brazilian government (federal, state, or municipal) prior to 1983, or the text of a treaty, convention, law, decree, regulation, judicial decision, or other official enactment. The source indicates that this photo was taken in 2015 and is not published in the text of a treaty, convention, law, decree, regulation, judicial decision, or other official enactment. The source does appear to be a government Flickr photo stream, but on Flickr this photo is marked as "All Rights Reserved".

—RP88 (talk) 22:26, 29 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@RP88: Hello. You are correct, all of these files were uploaded by the Legislative Assembly of Santa Catarina’s profile on Flickr, which makes them public domain according to PD-BrazilGov — despite what is says on Flickr. Probably this happened out of a clumsy input on the reservation of right during upload, but as we all know, the legislation prevails and it makes clear that these photos cannot be “all rights reserved”. Przelijpdahl (talk) 01:46, 30 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@RP88 is everything ok? Przelijpdahl (talk) 16:39, 4 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 18:59, 13 November 2022 (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 Przelijpdahl (talk · contribs)[edit]

These files were not first published in Brazil before 1 March 1989, as would be required for {{PD-Brazil-URAA}} to render these in the public domain in the United States. Rather, these are presumed copyrighted in the United States by Hirtle's chart because they were published after 1 March 1989, even though they were in the public domain in Brazil at the time of their publication. As such, these photos are copyrighted in the United States. There is no evidence of a free license, so I propose that these files be deleted.

— Red-tailed hawk (nest) 18:22, 24 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Red-tailed hawk PD-Brazil-URAA explicitly says that "Photographic works not considered to be "artistic creations" produced before 20 June 1998" are Public domain according to Brazilian law. Przelijpdahl (talk) 18:51, 24 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree! However, if you read my DR nominating statement, you'll notice that I explicitly mention that the files were in the public domain in Brazil at the time of their publication. The problem is its copyright status in the United States rather than in Brazil.
The {{PD-Brazil-URAA}} template states that This work is in the public domain both in Brazil and in the United States because it was first published in Brazil (and not published in the U.S. within 30 days) and it was first published before 1 March 1989 without complying with U.S. copyright formalities (underline mine). The reason for this, as COM:HIRTLE explains, is that for works first published outside the U.S. by citizens of foreign nations or U.S. Citizens Living Abroad, works published 1 March 1989 or later and without a copyright notice follow the U.S. publication chart to determine duration of copyright. When you look at that chart, works published from 1 March 1989 through 2002 and created after 1977 are not in the public domain in the United States except in the case that:
  1. There is a known author with a known date of death (in which the copyright expires 70 years after the death of author); or
  2. For works with unknown authors, 95 years after publication or 120 years after creation, whichever expires first.
I see no evidence that the creators of any of these works died over 70 years ago, nor that these works were created over 120 years ago. As such, I believe these are copyrighted in the United States (and have been since the time of their publication), even though they are in the public domain in Brazil. For this reason, the files must be deleted in line with COM:PD. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 19:21, 24 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That’s preposterous, you admitted yourself that these files are PD in Brazil. You could at least put it under a “restricted content” banner and not allow its distribution on American wikipedia, instead of deleting these photos. Przelijpdahl (talk) 00:57, 25 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As Commons:Licensing says in the big gray box at the top of it,

Wikimedia Commons only accepts media

  • that are explicitly freely licensed, or
  • that are in the public domain in at least the United States and in the source country of the work.
The Wikimedia Foundation is based in the United States and is subject to U.S. copyright laws, so we cannot host works that both lack an explicit license and are copyrighted in the United States, even if they are public domain in some non-U.S. country. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 01:05, 25 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
the policy says:
« that are explicitly freely licensed, or that are in the public domain in at least the United States and in the source country of the work »
The current files may not be in PD in America. But they are explicitly freely licensed with the tag URAA as you said it yourself, so there is no reason to delete these files. Przelijpdahl (talk) 17:06, 28 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Where did I say that the photographs are freely licensed? Have the copyright holders in the United States explicitly released them under one? — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 07:06, 29 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"Freely licensed" refers to Creative Commons licensing. The uploader isn't claiming that they are freely licensed, they are saying that they're public domain, and then mixing up public domain and freely licensed. Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 12:08, 13 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 18:57, 13 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Files uploaded by Przelijpdahl (talk · contribs)[edit]

According to the description, “Retrato obtido através da Secretaria de Comunicação Social da Prefeitura de Florianópolis, que garantiu o licenciamento da fotografia para disponibilização na Wikimedia Commons.” But no COM:VRT volunteer has confirmed it.

RodRabelo7 (talk) 02:12, 4 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@RodRabelo7: What are you talking about man? If they are not, then how to contact these volontary guys to check it out? Przelijpdahl (talk) 15:02, 4 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Przelijpdahl, a “Secretaria de Comunicação Social da Prefeitura de Florianópolis” deve encaminhar um e-mail para o COM:VRT (permissions-commons@wikimedia.org) declarando que permite o uso das imagens sob determinada licença livre. Penso que talvez e-mails da secretaria enviados para você possam ser uma evidência alternativa. @DarwIn e @Albertoleoncio podem ajudá-lo melhor, já que não sou voluntário do VRT. RodRabelo7 (talk) 19:53, 4 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Entendi, obrigado!! Abs Przelijpdahl (talk) 20:01, 4 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@RodRabelo7 Próxima vez que apanhar casos desses simplesmente marque como sem permissão, dá muito menos trabalho e já tem as instruções todas no aviso... Darwin Ahoy! 20:25, 4 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Права на зброю (1933). Малюнак 1.png[edit]

weird PD rationale: pma70 of unknown author 188.123.231.16 02:52, 4 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The author is unknown, there is no information in the book. National Library of Belarus does not indicate any information about the artist either. Also in Belarus public domain if 50 years have passed since the death of the author or the date of publication (if the author is unknown). Gleb Leo (talk) 08:37, 4 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Trba i Dugi - Prva knjiga.png[edit]

Possible copyright violation. The uploader claimed this is their own work and signed "Marko Zivanic" but I cannot find in my google search any evidence that such a person is involved with the https://sh.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avanture_Trbe_i_Dugog Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 03:56, 4 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:The letter 'V'.jpg[edit]

Likely copyright violation. The description states: " The artwork was created by Anthony M. Grimaldi of JourneyManDesigns for the children's book 'I'm Thinking About Something In My Garden' conceived by Josette Stanton.". The uploader has a username "JourneyManDesigns " which suggests connection to the company, but this has not been confirmed through an OTRS ticket. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 03:59, 4 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Delete I do not think the ticket would even matter, as that is clearly Disney's interpretation of Aurora from the film, Sleeping Beauty. (Oinkers42) (talk) 04:43, 28 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:اصف اتوبوس ها در یاسوج.jpg[edit]

Bigger version of this: https://peykemellat.ir/20088/%D8%B1%D8%A7%D9%87-%D8%A7%D9%86%D8%AF%D8%A7%D8%B2%DB%8C-%D9%85%D8%AC%D8%AF%D8%AF-%D8%B3%DB%8C%D8%B3%D8%AA%D9%85-%D8%AD%D9%85%D9%84-%D9%88-%D9%86%D9%82%D9%84-%D8%B9%D9%85%D9%88%D9%85%DB%8C-%DB%8C%D8%A7/ Rohalamin (talk) 06:14, 4 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Mutasarrifate symbols[edit]

These images were both uploaded by User:Samhanin. The Mount Lebanon Mutasarrifate never had an official flag or emblem. While the Maronite flag was used unofficially as an ethnic flag and officially from 1918-1920 it was never used for the Mutasarrifate. The only sources that claim this are websites with no direct references on the matter. Furthermore, the emblem does not even appear on either site and is likely original research. Red Phoenician (talk) 09:04, 4 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Keep The flag is also reported on [4] In any case, it should be renamed to “Alleged flag of…” instead of “Flag of…” While it may or may not have been official, it was likely used unofficially. 71.239.86.150 14:21, 4 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That website cites no sources and is full of inaccuracies it is hardly reliable. Red Phoenician (talk) 22:43, 4 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Tower Palace.JPG[edit]

Violation of architectural copyright. Korea does not provide commercial freedom of panorama. See also Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Samsung Tower Palace. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 09:19, 4 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]


File:Verena S (2023).jpg[edit]

possible copyvio (c) Ing. Martin Meieregger M2k~dewiki (talk) 10:02, 4 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:JAL516 wreckage from Xiaohongshu.jpg[edit]

Second time this has been tagged so I’ll explain everything in here in full. Give me a few minutes. S5A-0043Talk 10:11, 4 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A few days ago I contacted the account and asked whether I can upload the image to Commons. I explained that the image needs to be free in that everyone else can reuse it as well, and asked whether they can give permission, or under a free license.
The account holder replied me back saying that I can reuse so long as they are attributed.
I thanked them, and asked them to put a statement into the comments section (because Xiaohongshu doesn’t allow editing posts), so that admins can check, or that they put a screenshot of the convo. He replied “OK”.
An initial comment is posted something similar in Chinese to “如果有任何媒体要使用的话，请注明来源即可使用。” which translates roughly to “If any media organizations want to use this picture, please state the source.” This was deleted a few minutes later and replaced by a screenshot of the convo which was my idea, and my Xiaohongshu account (which has the same username as I’m using here) was pinged and notified of this.
I think a Chinese reader can easily verify that at the very least the screenshot was there. S5A-0043Talk 10:20, 4 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
CC @Denniss who tagged the permission pending the first time and @Araisyohei who tagged the CSD template after. S5A-0043Talk 10:21, 4 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Delete Wikimedia Commons requires that the image and license be clearly identified as a set. However, we could not find any comments or screenshots where the license was clarified, such as CC-BY-4.0, so we thought it should be removed. I think it would be OK if you re-upload the image with the license clarified according to the procedure in Commons:Volunteer_Response_Team/zh.--Araisyohei (talk) 10:37, 4 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    •  Question: Attribution only license is not accepted? S5A-0043Talk 10:44, 4 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • Using only explicitly stated templates is not discouraged, although it is not disallowed. Also, in such cases, the author's permission cannot be uploaded unless it is very clearly and explicitly stated. When it is explicitly stated that the material "may be used in any medium", it must be clear whether, for example, press, military or commercial use is included in the permitted media. The CC-BY licence clearly states this in an easy-to-understand manner. Incidentally, can Ping be viewed without logging in to this service? --Araisyohei (talk) 10:59, 4 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Delete There's no other choice unless we get a permission via OTRS. The permission and licensing situation is completely unclear now. Plus we already have a replacement image with this file --Denniss (talk) 11:41, 4 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Either way this file’s already been substituted & I’m kind of tired from this so I don’t have the intention to fight until the end. I just wanna clear things up so I don’t land myself (or my @S5A-0043 ByOthers account for that matter) a block. S5A-0043Talk 12:06, 4 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Files in Category:Chagall's windows in the Abbell Synagogue[edit]

Firstly, there's zero evidence that synagogue in Israel qualify as "public places" for purposes of FOP there. Although this one seems to be located inside of a private hospital anyway, which clearly wouldn't qualify. Secondly, the artist of these windows, Marc Chagall, died in 1985. So these images are copyrighted until at least 2056 unless someone can provide evidence to the contrary.

Adamant1 (talk) 10:22, 4 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Can you provide evidence for that and do you not think the fact that it's located inside of a private hospital matters? Surely a room inside of a non-public building can't be public regardless of if it's a Synagogue or not. --Adamant1 (talk) 10:35, 4 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
First of all they are windows so the are inside and outside. There is no distinction in the Israeli law between internal and external public space. A public space is a public space. To the best of my knowledge, there were no lawsuits in Israel regarding freedom of panorama in an interior space. -- Geagea (talk) 10:51, 4 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
So are walls, but so what? Are you seriously going to argue that a painting on the interior of a wall qualifies for FOP just because the other side of the wall faces outside? Regardless, I didn't bring up the fact that it's inside of a non-public hospital to argue FOP in Israeli has anything to do with if the work is located inside of a building or not, but to say that the building that the synagogue is located in is already non-public to begin with. So there's no reason the synagogue would be.
Although the hospital grounds aren't really a "in a public place" anyway. Except for maybe being "outside", but that's not usually what laws mean by a public place. Nor do you seem to have provided me the evidence I asked for about synagogues to begin with. So I really don't think there's a reason these images would qualify for FOP. We'll have to agree disagree though since this isn't a debate. Nor do I feel like turning into one. Especially if you can't even cite anything saying synagogues are public places like I asked you to. --Adamant1 (talk) 11:00, 4 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You missed my point. The israeli law does not distinguish between interior or exterior public place. The law include both.-- Geagea (talk) 11:07, 4 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
And you missed where I said that has nothing to do with what I was saying. --Adamant1 (talk) 11:09, 4 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Israel doesn't say if public interior is ok or not. Is there any precedent? --Krd 06:42, 11 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]


File:Santuario del Dragnone - Il presbiterio.jpg[edit]

File:Santuario del Dragnone - Il presbiterio.jpg Riccardo.tarchini (talk) 11:06, 4 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Radio fan logo.jpg[edit]

To nie moja praca Patryk100ish (talk) 11:20, 4 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Files in Category:Pomona (series, Marino Marini)[edit]

Unfortunately there's no FOP in Italy and the artist of these statues, Marino Marini, died in 1980. So these images are copyrighted until at least 2051.

Adamant1 (talk) 11:38, 4 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There's obviously a difference between Marini allowing Monti to photograph a statue for his purposes and that then meaning anyone else can reuse said photograph for whatever they want. I don't doubt Monti had permission to photgraph the statue, but that doesn't mean everyone else can reuse the photograph however they like. --Adamant1 (talk) 01:52, 7 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Files in Category:Artworks by Arturo Martini in the Collection of Contemporary Art (Vatican Museums)[edit]

The copyright status of this sculpture was restored by the URAA. So the image should be deleted as COPYVIO.

Adamant1 (talk) 11:45, 4 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't think this is the case, as the artist (who died in 1947) and the collectioon are European, and its is not connected to any company profit, so it should not be affected by US law. --Sailko (talk) 11:48, 4 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Having said that, Adamant1 please wait untill this procedure ends, before you set for cancellation the entire Arturo Martini's category, thank you. --Sailko (talk) 11:50, 4 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That's not really how the URAA works. Regardless though, 2 images out of the upwords of a hundred that have been uploaded of his sculptures isn't "the entire Arturo Martini's category." Nor is nominating a few out of those images "canceling" anything. So I'd appreciate it if you skipped the hyperbole. --Adamant1 (talk) 11:57, 4 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
How can I know what's in your head? That was just a legitimate request, not a hyperbole. --Sailko (talk) 14:10, 9 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Pretty easy. All the images in "the entire Arturo Martini's category" can't be deleted to begin with, even if I wanted to delete them, which is why I said your comment about it is hyperbole. --Adamant1 (talk) 14:31, 9 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]


File:Event&Catering farbig.jpg[edit]

Uploaded for promotional use, cf. de:Special:DeletedContributions/MilitaryServices and de:Special:Contribs/MilitaryServices Schniggendiller (talk) 13:40, 4 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Files uploaded by Sau20fatmaunal (talk · contribs)[edit]

Unused low quality versions of existing commons images, without names/descriptions/categories .

TheImaCow (talk) 14:51, 4 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Files uploaded by Sherwin Bering (talk · contribs)[edit]

Most likely previously published on Facebook: FBMD code seen at the metadata. Proof of identity verification of the true copyright holder (the photographer) via email correspondence is required for images previously published on social media so to confirm if the uploader is indeed the photographer (the copyright holder) of these images and that the photographer (the copyright owner) has applied the license as indicated, as there have been numerous cases on Wiki before (and up to now) that the uploaders just grabbed images from Facebook or other social media sites. For email template, see COM:VRTS#Email message template for release of rights to a file. Better still, have the originals overwrite these FB-derived images, if the images are truly self-photographed works of the uploader.

JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 16:27, 4 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The said image was taken personally by the author during travel in Manila last 2023. Posted on social media but I can attest in my honor it is my personal photo Sherwin Bering (talk) 01:39, 5 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Sherwin Bering do you have the originals that are not from your Facebook account? If so, overwrite these FB-derived images with those originals. Otherwise, you still have to send an email to Wikimedia Foundation (COM:VRTS) as those were previously published on Facebook before you published them here. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 04:48, 5 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Also, Palacio del Gobernador is a copyrighted work of architecture, and as we currently do not have freedom of panorama, the building is not free for commercial Creative Commons licensing distribution on Wikimedia sites. A prior deletion request: Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Palacio del Gobernador. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 04:54, 5 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:WaterTower Music Logo.png[edit]

This file was initially tagged by Materialscientist as no permission (No permission since).

I think the water tower silhouette is simple enough that the logo falls under the thresehold of originality in the United States. Adeletron 3030 (talk) 16:47, 4 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Jay Kay signature.svg[edit]

Per COM:SIG UK A1Cafel (talk) 16:48, 4 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment: As discussed here and here, COM:SIG UK misstates the relevant law and the cited sources, and the user who wrote it no longer stands by it. A1Cafel appears to have nominated quite a number of signatures for deletion on this incorrect basis. He has been pinged several times about this issue, and it is disappointing that he has continued to nominate signatures for deletion without responding to the issues raised. In light of the above, it would seem appropriate for him to weigh in as to whether he believes the nominations are still appropriate. --Usernameunique (talk) 23:58, 12 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Мова - ДНК нації 01.png[edit]

Not a free logo of an organization from Ukraine, which does not meet the threshold of originality (логотип складається не лише з тексту (the logo consists not only of text (Fenikals stated this in the license), but also of a complex geometric figure). It also appears that the text has an unusual font that may be copyrighted. Seva Seva (talk) 17:37, 4 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Chicken Adobo Flakes.jpg[edit]

copyvio? source: https://nutriasia.com/ (plate without background) ZimskoSonce (talk) 18:08, 4 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This file is uploaded in Shutterstock. I'm not sure if Nutriasia purchased this as a stock photo but this is my photo. However, I did not see my photo posted in their website. Sayoteshoots (talk) 04:24, 9 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Two Glasses of Halo-halo.jpg[edit]

copyvio. source: Kayea29/Shutterstock. article: https://nomadparadise.com/asian-desserts/ ZimskoSonce (talk) 18:10, 4 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This file is uploaded in Shutterstock. But I'm Kayea29 and this is my photo. Sayoteshoots (talk) 04:19, 9 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Ангел статуетка.jpg[edit]

by Oleg Evko? https://gods-and-demons.fandom.com/wiki/Izgaldin ZimskoSonce (talk) 19:15, 4 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:The-Sims-4-Mono-Marble-Table-Set-1.jpg[edit]

OOS, promotion of commercial product Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 20:04, 4 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It is a visual related to 3D visualization in computer environment. This image and the content it represents is a game mode. Anyone who wants can have this content for free. It is not a commercial product. What makes you think this is a commercial product? Is there anything I need to fix? If there is something I missed, I want to know. Pentapixel (talk) 20:17, 4 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Infrogmation of New Orleans ping Pentapixel (talk) 15:22, 5 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
A quick look at the web source when I nominated showed a pay sign up link "premium". Even if this image and some other material is free, the intent appeared promotional. Whether or not this is so, I question the in-scope appropriateness. Other users or admin(s) will make the determination. As to fixing things, I simply think that there are a great many things that are fun for many places online that do not belong on Commons. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 18:07, 5 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:UNLSH Bandfoto.jpg[edit]

possible copyvio (c) Maurus Schedler M2k~dewiki (talk) 20:33, 4 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:108 Marcs Carreras, pl. Joaquim Folguera 1 (Barcelona), aparador de Tintín.jpg[edit]

Derivative works of Tintin artwork. Futhermore, this is a tangible legal risk case, as the Société Moulinsart is known to pursue people using any artwork related to Tintin. The RedBurn (talk) 20:37, 4 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@The RedBurn: Is this not a case of freedom of panorama? It was a collection of Tintin objects displayed on a shop window in Barcelona, view from the street. It was not a Tintin shop, but a frame workshop. --Enric (talk) 01:19, 5 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't think this applies unfortunately: Commons:Copyright_rules_by_territory/Spain#Freedom_of_panorama "Works permanently located in parks or on streets, squares or other public tracks and passes" The RedBurn (talk) 07:41, 5 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]


File:Détail-Exposition Hergé - Grand Palais.jpg[edit]

Derivative works of Tintin artwork. Futhermore, this is a tangible legal risk case, as the Société Moulinsart is known to pursue people using any artwork related to Tintin. The RedBurn (talk) 20:39, 4 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This is a low resolution detail of a larger image that was deleted since and never used. So no objection to delete it as well. Archibald Tuttle (talk) 21:08, 4 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:TinĉjoNigra.jpg[edit]

Derivative works of Tintin artwork. Futhermore, this is a tangible legal risk case, as the Société Moulinsart is known to pursue people using any artwork related to Tintin. The RedBurn (talk) 20:39, 4 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Wall lined with Tintin comic books, Calouste Gulbenkian Museum, Lisbon, Portugal julesvernex2.jpg[edit]

Derivative works of Tintin artwork. Futhermore, this is a tangible legal risk case, as the Société Moulinsart is known to pursue people using any artwork related to Tintin. The RedBurn (talk) 20:41, 4 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Seres Automobile Logo.jpg[edit]

This file was initially tagged by Wcam as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: Complex logo exceeding COM:TOO China


I disagree with this. The linked logo consists of 5 normal letters, and a circle with two bend lines within it. This is a very simple logo. From the China TOO page, I'd say the "KON" logo is more complex than this logo in question here and it is acceptable.TheImaCow (talk) 21:10, 4 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

See the LY and Gang Heng logo examples under the Not OK section of COM:TOO China. This logo is more complex and creative than those. Wcam (talk) 21:13, 4 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
But they include chinese letters. I can't read them, but maybe they're somehow special? TheImaCow (talk) 21:17, 4 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Nothing special about the characters - these two examples are subject to copyright because of their geometric patterns. In the Gang Heng logo example the characters are just regular gothic script. For the LY example, the court case is specifically about the graphic part not the text. Wcam (talk) 19:38, 5 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This is a company logo that is in public domain. Will it violate any copyright? Infinty 0 (talk) 13:10, 15 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Files in Category:Duckie Thot[edit]

Sadly, I don't think these beautiful images are free to use. They were all uploaded by the same user, on the same day, from two Creative Commons Attribution licenses YouTube videos. The first five are from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BOhdwhpYZQQ is from SpiceTV Africa, which may well be an actual television channel, but they're screenshots of posed still photos, specifically most from https://www.papermag.com/duckie-thot-is-going-to-shock-us-1; not originally taken by SpiceTV Africa. Similarly, the second two are from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WOQFFRLudsc is of still images; the YouTube channel, win autoclip is relatively small, and makes no claim of being a professional fashion photographer, so I similarly doubt they were taken by the channel.

(As a counterexample, I found and uploaded another image from another YouTube video, that I am fairly sure was taken by the channel, it's from a brief paparazzi style video of her getting into a car, which is what that channel does; far worse quality, unfortunately, but likely actually free.)

GRuban (talk) 21:18, 4 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

これらの画像はYouTubeにCC BYの条件のもとアップロードされた、今の私に言えるのはここまでです。それを信用したことの何が問題か理解できません。I cannot write English. --ねこの森には帰れない (talk) 01:08, 5 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That was the uploader, and Google translate says that was "These images were uploaded to YouTube under the terms of CC BY, that's all I can say for now. I don't understand what's wrong with trusting that." Nothing against the uploader, it can be complicated to decide when to trust a license. The basic rule I use is to consider whether it is realistic that the YouTube (or Flickr or whatever) account holder took the images themselves. In the case of a video showing a still photograph, that's already a warning, since if they could have taken the subject in the same conditions as part of the video, they probably would have. Other factors are other content from the account, size and reputation of the account, etc., which I pointed out above. In the end, it comes down to a judgment call, which will eventually be made by the Commons administrator reviewing this request. This sort of thing comes with experience, which I won the hard way - by making my own mistakes! This stuff is hard; well meaning and experienced Commons editors can differ over whether to believe a license, and even I still make mistakes occasionally (even though I am now a Commons:License reviewer). That's why we have this review process, we help each other: I can see something someone else missed, someone else can notice something I missed. Unless the uploader makes a habit of uploading questionable images either blatantly or repeatedly after warning, the admin will understand that the upload was made in good faith. --GRuban (talk) 14:34, 5 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Files uploaded by Eindeutschung (talk · contribs)[edit]

At least lack of COM:EDUSE per Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Germanisierung.

Achim55 (talk) 21:35, 4 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Can you clarify what are the reasons for requesting deletion?
i'm same user/author ( @Eindeutschung + @Germanisierung ) and this work created by me, with some updates to the design .. so please kindly explain what is your problem with my design? Eindeutschung (talk) 12:00, 5 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
& if you think i stole the logo from Behance, that's not true.
Both Behance accounts are mine
whether: http://behance.net/Germanisierung or http://behance.net/Eindeutschung .. if you want me to prove that, tell me a way to make it Eindeutschung (talk) 19:55, 5 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's simply because "Germanisierung"/"Eindeutschung" doesn't exist except on your social media sites (some of which are even empty) and thus it's out of our project scope. --Achim55 (talk) 20:04, 5 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Not allowed to upload a logo on Wikipedia just because I do not have active social media pages?!
I am just an Arab university student in the German language department, who aspires to own a center for teaching and disseminating the German language in my country in the future, and I designed the logo for the project. I even removed the word “Institute” from the design because the project is not completed yet.
Does this violate Wikipedia rules in any way? Eindeutschung (talk) 00:40, 6 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
+ The logo does not contain any advertising words, it consists only of two words: ألمنة + Eindeutschung
They both mean (Germanization) Eindeutschung (talk) 00:45, 6 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
http://me-qr.com/I6khtwoI
Here are my educational level ranks in the German language
my degrees "Armed Forces Language Institute" (Egypt):
level-1 : excellent
level-2 : very good
level-3 : very good
level-4 : very good
… current level : level-5
… & if you know some way by which i can prove that the project is educational, tell me how Eindeutschung (talk) 11:00, 6 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Isbike logo (2021).png[edit]

This logo is claimed to be PD as not meeting threshold of originality. The bicycle in the logo is beyond a simple geometric shape. Whpq (talk) 22:06, 4 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Diego Frenkel (2016).jpg[edit]

The source is https://buenosaires.gob.ar that has a CC-BY license, but the image was already available in 2014 on Frenkel's official webpage [5]. We cannot use Buenos Aires website license as they are not the copyright holder of this image. Günther Frager (talk) 22:08, 4 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:© fabian stürtz 2012.08.14 - luis 0079-c.jpg[edit]

metadata different from description: © FABIAN STUERTZ I Photographer. ZimskoSonce (talk) 22:17, 4 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hey there, thanks for your massage and that you've shared your concerns about this picture. Im very new to the game and to be honest I've entered the wiki cosmos to basically edit the article about myself:-) The changes I've made in the description about myself are absolutely the basic facts and need to be changed online. The photo from Fabian Start was taken during a photo session that was payed. The rights for this picture are cleared and are mine, so no worries! I hope this helps, please let me know anything important. I really appreciate your help! All the best from Cologne, Mo WikiMo17 (talk) 11:40, 5 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Jenseits der blauen Grenze Dorit Linke.jpg[edit]

possible copyvio M2k~dewiki (talk) 22:27, 4 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:డేనియల్ నొబోవా.jpg[edit]

Photographer: Andres Yepez/Bloomberg. article: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-08-22/who-is-daniel-noboa-the-heir-to-a-banana-fortune-running-for-ecuador-president ZimskoSonce (talk) 22:37, 4 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Al-Burhan.jpg[edit]

Unlikely uploader own work as this seems and official website photo of Abdel Fattah al-Burhan Pierre cb (talk) 22:48, 4 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Pappos blues local.jpg[edit]

Album cover published in Argentina in 1992. The image is still copyrighted in the United Stated due to Berne Convention. Günther Frager (talk) 23:00, 4 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Files in Category:Virus album covers[edit]

Cover albums published in Argentina during the 1980s. They are currently in the public domain in Argentina (25 years after publication), but they were not in 1996 at URAA time. Therefore, they are still protected by copyright in the United States. Following COM:PCP we cannot keept these files.

Günther Frager (talk) 23:04, 4 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Files from J Man Flickr stream[edit]

This Flickr user has uploaded a grand total of 4 images, all professional looking. At least one of them is a clear copyright violation (File:Andrew Hastie with spouse Ruth, and Jonathan, Beatrice & Jemimah.jpg), the others have no information on who the author is. COM:FLICKRWASHING. --Cryptic-waveform (talk) 15:02, 4 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Comment. The nom seems to assume at least one and possibly multiple bad-faith actors. On the balance of probabilities, I think it's reasonably likely that the author(s) is a member of Hastie's staff, given their degree of access. The image you referred to as a "clear copyright violation" attributes the original author and purports to have been released under a CC licence. What is the basis for treating this as a copyvio rather than a case of inadequate release documentation? User:Cryptic-waveform with all respect, it feels as if you are targeting User:MatthewDalhousie's uploads for deletion willy-nilly rather than considering individual images on their merits. ITBF (talk) 04:34, 5 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    IMO this is a clear case of license laundering:

So too is license laundering: taking an image with a non-free copyright status (a disallowed, thus undesirable trait) and uploading it, without permission from the copyright holder, to a website that claims to release it under a free license.

— in: COM:FLICKRWASHING
Given the collection of pictures uploaded by this Flickr account, it's safe to assume that they're not the author of the pictures. And I don't think that we can assume that the Flickr user has the correct permission. Cryptic-waveform (talk) 04:39, 5 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't doubt the intelligence, or procedural capabilities, of the most recent commentator here; however I absolutely question anyone's claim here to certain quasi-supernatural powers of epistemology. In short it is in no way 'safe' to assume that someone is not the author of a photo, when all we have to go on is the details of the publisher. I agree with the earlier commentator that the assumption of bad faith is well beneath expectations of this community. MatthewDalhousie (talk) 00:35, 8 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Files from Behavioural Studies 2020 Flickr stream[edit]

Collection of files likely from different authors, some professional looking. Possible case of COM:FLICKRWASHING. --Cryptic-waveform (talk) 15:18, 4 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Any suggestions on what you'd like me to do here @Cryptic-waveform?
The photographs about this young scientist are found on a Flickr page, all set to creative commons I believe. MatthewDalhousie (talk) 22:22, 4 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't think there is much to do. This Flickr stream looks fishy to me and it's unlikely that the uploader on Flickr is the author of (some of) these pictures. And anybody can pick a CC license on Flickr for any random file on the Internet so that doesn't mean much. Cryptic-waveform (talk) 22:30, 4 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Okay, look, I very much want to keep things positive here, and I'm happy to fix up mistakes where it's possible to do so. But I am going to go forward with a mind that, if an image has been shared and published as creative commons then that is how it should be handled. That's my outlook. I hope you can accept that. And I hope you won't mind me saying you really are spending a lot of time going through images that I've worked with and it's beginning to feel like these interactions are not good faith at all. Do you think we could do that please? 00:25, 5 January 2024 (UTC) MatthewDalhousie (talk) 00:25, 5 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

But I am going to go forward with a mind that, if an image has been shared and published as creative commons then that is how it should be handled.

You yourself have published images on Flickr under Creative Commons when they shoudn't have been. This is exactly why one needs to apply critical thinking when importing images from Flickr, or other external sources. It's a common issue here on Commons which is why there is a whole page dedicated to it: COM:FLICKRWASHING. Cryptic-waveform (talk) 03:06, 5 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Extraordinary magisterial, if not to say judgemental language, being deployed here, almost as if there was an accepted view that, somehow, supra-administrative powers had been acquired - when in fact they have not. I stand by the assessments that other earnest editors have said so much better than me. I am acting in good faith, I have used images that others have published as belonging to the creative commons. I openly admit that I am learning and could do better when it comes to the fields of certain files, making it absolutely clear that certain people are the authors of some photos when I am not. The only mitigating factor I ask others to consider is that when any editor uses the Wiki Flickr Wizard (which, because I am in no way technically or procedurally inclined; I am very grateful for) it has a way of hoovering up details that may not be correct. In short, the images mentioned above have been published as creative commons and I have simply used them as such, hoping to improve articles, because I believe many articles are improved when they have a legitimately published image of the subject at hand. Hope anyone reading this has a lovely day. MatthewDalhousie (talk) 00:28, 8 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/2024/01/04&oldid=849103097"