Commons:Deletion requests/2024/01/07

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
6 January 2024
8 January 2024
Deletion requests on 7 January 2024

January 7[edit]

File:Bobby Au.png[edit]

Not own work, no OTRS permission for use by AM730 218.250.175.81 00:47, 7 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]


File:AMICITIA-Bootshaus Mannheim um 1938.jpg[edit]

wenn quelle und autor nicht bekannt sind, weiß man auch nicht, ob der autor schon 70 jahre tot ist Xocolatl (talk) 01:09, 7 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Heinrich Voigt.jpg[edit]

wenn quelle und autor unbekannt sind, wie konnte das bild dann hochgeladen werden? und wie weiß man dann, ob der autor schon 70 jahre tot ist? Xocolatl (talk) 01:10, 7 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Naja, leider verhindert der Upload-Assistent nicht, dass man Bilder mit hahnebüchernen Einträgen hochlädt. PaterMcFly (talk) 17:51, 7 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Template:SouthVietnam[edit]

see Commons:Deletion_requests/Template:Zionist_symbol Kys5g (talk) 02:02, 7 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Sir Francis Drake indicating the Spanish Armada to Elizabeth I 2000 CSK 08692 0260 000(124856).jpg[edit]

This 1942 UK painting, while now in the public domain in the UK, is still protected until the end of 2037 in the USA. The file should therefore be deleted; it can be restored in 2038. Rosenzweig τ 02:50, 7 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

" URAA cannot be used as the sole reason for deletion." are you going to abide by the consensus? Commons:Massive restoration of deleted images by the URAA. --Frypie (talk) 16:52, 7 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That quote is outdated, it was only an intermediate result. The current consensus per Commons:Licensing and Commons:URAA-restored copyrights is (and has been for quite some years) that if a work is still protected in the USA because of the URAA that can be the sole reason for deletion. --Rosenzweig τ 17:02, 7 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"A mere allegation that the URAA applies to a file cannot be the sole reason for deletion." Commons:URAA-restored copyrights. i take it the answer is no, you will not abide by consensus or policy, your "significant doubt" trumps the advise from WMF legal. --Frypie (talk) 14:08, 8 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It is not a "mere allegation", and the current policy is as I wrote: URAA can be the sole reason for deletion. --Rosenzweig τ 04:46, 9 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:The chess game 2001 NYE 08515 0126 000(024845).jpg[edit]

This 1935 UK painting, while now in the public domain in the UK, is still protected until the end of 2030 in the USA. The file should therefore be deleted; it can be restored in 2031. Rosenzweig τ 02:55, 7 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

" URAA cannot be used as the sole reason for deletion." are you going to abide by the consensus? Commons:Massive restoration of deleted images by the URAA. --Frypie (talk) 16:53, 7 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That quote is outdated, it was only an intermediate result. The current consensus per Commons:Licensing and Commons:URAA-restored copyrights is (and has been for quite some years) that if a work is still protected in the USA because of the URAA that can be the sole reason for deletion. --Rosenzweig τ 17:03, 7 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"A mere allegation that the URAA applies to a file cannot be the sole reason for deletion." Commons:URAA-restored copyrights. i take it the answer is no, you will not abide by consensus or policy, your "significant doubt" trumps the advise from WMF legal.
for this artwork the provenance is "Continental Galleries of Fine Art, Montreal." so publication in Canada is likely, the gallery archive is here [1] --Frypie (talk) 14:05, 8 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It is not a "mere allegation", and the current policy is that URAA can be the sole reason for deletion. And that a painting by an artist from England was at some point sold by a gallery in Canada does not mean that the country of origin of the painting is Canada. But even if it were, it'd be still protected in the US just the same because it was still protected on the URAA date in Canada. --Rosenzweig τ 04:51, 9 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
publication in a gallery catalog abroad without simultaneous publication in US means that it is public domain in the US. do you have any actual evidence that the work is copyrighted as advised by WMF legal? --Frypie (talk) 22:00, 15 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Do you have any evidence that this (assumed) publication was the first publication? When exactly was this publication you assume? And, as I wrote, the URAA applies to Canada too. --Rosenzweig τ 06:45, 16 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I take it by your answer, that you have no actual evidence, and you do not care what the advice of WMF legal is. you think you are smarter than WMF legal, because you can do arithmetic. reread the Commons:URAA-restored copyrights, where it talks about publication. --Frypie (talk) 13:31, 16 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
And? I don't quite understand what you're alluding to by this. It doesn't need evidence to say that the UK is the country of origin of a 1935 painting by a British artist who lived in the UK all his life except for a year spent travelling in Italy in the late 1800s or early 1900s. A UK work is copyrighted without a need for a registration etc., for 70 years pma, which means this work by an artist who died in 1952 was copyrighted in the UK in 1996, which means the URAA restored its US copyright. --Rosenzweig τ 14:08, 16 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
your lack of understanding of US copyright is established. URAA is not a matter of arithmetic, but a cascade of tests, which this item fails. your attitude is that everyone else should do the work, and you need do no work but cast aspersions. this is not the standard of practice recommended by WMF legal. --Frypie (talk) 23:05, 19 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't quite get why you think "this item" has "failed" any of the "cascade of tests". But I do get the impression that you don't have any real experience with the subject and are grasping at all kinds of straws which you don't understand, which leads to statements like the above.

Most of the tests mentioned at Commons:URAA-restored copyrights 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 them so you can perhaps understand, see below), 2) the work was not published before 1929, 3) paintings are copyrightable in the US, 4)a) the UK is a Berne Convention state and thus eligible (and so is Canada, 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 the UK on the URAA date of January 1, 1996 (because Bennett had died in 1952 and the UK has/had a protection term of 70 years post mortem auctoris, 70 years after the death of the author; similar with Canada which had 50 years at the time), 6) the painter did have a sufficient connection to the UK, 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, the UK and Canada are among the countries with a bilateral copyright treaty with the US, which are over 100 years old, but still in force. Which means that Brits and Canadians 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 now be 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 Frank Moss Bennett will show that one work of art by Frank Moss Bennett, called Hunt breakfast, 690, was indeed registered, by the U. S. printing & lithograph co., on May 19, 1933, as K20051. See [2]. The 690 is probably the catalog number of this lithograph company. I could not find a renewal, so that work might indeed be in the public domain in the US because it was registered, but not renewed. I found two paintings and a sketch by Frank Moss Bennett called (The) Hunt breakfast, the paintings from 1929 and 1949, the sketch from 1930. The 1930 sketch looks like a preliminary version of yet another painting with that title widely found online as an "art print", "vintage print" or similar, so that one is probably the print that was registered in 1933. Given that, I think one could upload that print with {{PD-US-not renewed}}. Searching the catalogs for "Frank Bennett", all the volumes that come up in the results are either Music, Musical Compositions, Books and Pamphlets or Dramatic compositions, for works by other people which are not the painter Frank Moss Bennett. There are separate volumes for Works of Art (as the one linked above), but none of those show up in the "Frank Bennett" search. Conclusion: Only that one work (Hunt breakfast, 690) by Frank Moss Bennett was registered for copyright in the period from 1891 to 1977, specifically in 1933 because it was reproduced as a print, but no other works by him were registered. --Rosenzweig τ 08:56, 20 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It's the print offered here at Ebay, they even show the label which says Facsimile No. 690. Other versions of the print found online show it's a facsimile of a 1930 painting by Frank Moss Bennett. --Rosenzweig τ 09:14, 20 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"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." - you have not shown simutaneous publication in the US with publication in a Berne country. --Frypie (talk) 14:13, 30 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
And? What do you mean by that? --Rosenzweig τ 21:20, 30 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Patriotic Pro-Gaddafi Libyan Military Song.webm[edit]

Out of scope? Trade (talk) 05:03, 7 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:李常傑像圖.png[edit]

A picture with completely wrong description. It is Chinese ancient politician Wang Anshi,not Ly thuong Kiet. Zhxy 519 (talk) 12:14, 18 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Kept: no valid reason for deletion. Use {{Fact disputed}} or {{Rename}} instead. P 1 9 9  ✉ 19:21, 25 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:李常傑像圖.png[edit]

This is an art used on cover of 1950 edition of "Ly Thuong Kiet" written by Hoang Xuan Han (1908-1996). The designer of the cover is unknown, but the person in this portrait is Wang Anshi, not Ly Thuong Kiet(李常傑). I find this situation confusing and would like to ask for more comments. Thank you. Zhxy 519 (talk) 05:47, 7 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Дмитрий Ушаков.jpg[edit]

Plus

article in which it was associated at ruWP was deleted from draft, seems not notable. Nothing in the images makes them educational if they are not not notable.  — billinghurst sDrewth 07:05, 7 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:Coat of Arms of Danilovsky district.jpeg[edit]

This is just a PROJECT. It was not accepted as an official symbol. — Redboston 12:05, 30 November 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Keep. But the file is still used in multiple projects. Taivo (talk) 12:27, 3 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Kept: no valid reason for deletion - widely used. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:20, 10 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Coat of Arms of Danilovsky district.jpeg[edit]

This is just a PROJECT, it isn'a an official symbol => it isn't PD-RU-exempt. — Redboston 07:39, 7 January 2024 (UTC) Widely used cannot be the reason for keept because this is not free. Jim has not answered. — Redboston 07:41, 7 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Terlan Mirzeyev yapmış olduğu resim eserlerinden biri.jpg[edit]

Copyrighted artwork. Nanahuatl (talk) 08:37, 7 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Template:Original uploader own[edit]

This template is now empty and it is not clear what it should do, seems to be a test. ZandDev (talk) 09:10, 7 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Originally (2018) it was a template redirect, pointing to Template:Own work by original uploader. ZandDev (talk) 09:14, 7 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Manchu-vishnu.jpg[edit]

While the Exif says it's from 2017 and the timestamp at website [3] says updated in 2020, the user's upload Commons:Deletion requests/File:Viraj Ashwin stills at manasanamaha movie press meet (cropped).jpg indicates the uploader might not have the license to the image. -- DaxServer (talk) 10:11, 7 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Files in Category:Siegfried Schütze[edit]

copyright violation; shows painting by living artist, no freedom of panorama.

Martin Sg. (talk) 10:23, 7 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 in Category:Paintings by Pierre Bonnard[edit]

Not PD before 2018.

— Racconish ☎ 09:13, 9 June 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Some of this paints are older then 100 years, so it's necessary to check witch ones need to be deleted. --Codas (talk) 09:44, 9 June 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If mathematics is not opinable, Bonnard died in 1947, so in 2017 it's been 70 years. PD is after 70 years from the death, not 70+1, so it's in PD since Jan. 01st 2017. --Sailko (talk) 09:51, 9 June 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Comment The calculation of 70 years starts from January 1, 1948 per article L. 123-1 of French copyright code: "Au décès de l'auteur, ce droit persiste au bénéfice de ses ayants droit pendant l'année civile en cours et les soixante-dix années qui suivent". On the death of the author, that right shall subsist for his successors in title during the current calendar year and the 70 years thereafter [4]. — Racconish ☎ 09:59, 9 June 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Many of these paintings are in private collections... are we sure we cannot postpone this discussion of only 6 months?? --Sailko (talk) 10:49, 9 June 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:50, 14 June 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Files in Category:Paintings by Pierre Bonnard[edit]

The painting, created in France in 1946, is in the public domain in its country of origin, France, but remains copyrighted in the U.S. It won't enter the public domain in the U.S. until at least 2042.

0x0a (talk) 12:04, 7 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

published in "Galerie Louis Carré, Paris (sale: Ader Picard Tajan, Palais d'Orsay, Paris, 27th April 1978, lot 29C)" no copyright notice, no registration, therefore public domain in the US. --Arnoseven (talk) 17:30, 11 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This does not apply to a work first published outside the U.S. 0x0a (talk) 18:05, 11 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"If published, was the work published in an eligible country (Berne/WTO, excluding the US; use this table) and not published in the United States during the 30-day period following publication in such eligible country?" Commons:URAA-restored_copyrights#Main_tests. --Arnoseven (talk) 18:18, 11 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, that means that it is URAA-restored. D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 05:02, 8 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]


File:Pirámides de Egipto y la Astronomía.jpg[edit]

This file was initially tagged by Fernando de Gorocica as Speedy (Speedydelete) and the most recent rationale was: Deseo eliminar la imagen de Wikicommons  — billinghurst sDrewth 12:13, 7 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well billinghurst I think this file (image) and the explanation (algorithm) to find the year of start of the construction of the Khafre pyramid is completely wrong. In the future I will think better and upload the correct image and result. Sincerely. Fernando de Gorocica (talk) 23:14, 7 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Fernando de Gorocica: I cannot speedy delete things that do not meet the criteria, that is the purpose of converting this to a deletion request. Please don't at me for following due process.  — billinghurst sDrewth 23:20, 7 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Good @Billinghurst: , I understand you and I'll let you continue with the process of possibly deleting my work. Best regards. Fernando de Gorocica (talk) 23:29, 7 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Как решить? 2013-12-22 17-48.jpg[edit]

This file was initially tagged by Gnomingstuff as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: Image found elsewhere online as early as 2008, before date here; not uploader's own https://tineye.com/search/20a121964cc072b60ec121310f7d9d8e9abe66c8?sort=crawl_date&order=asc&page=1 PD-textlogo? Yann (talk) 12:22, 7 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]


File:Olkusz Partyzantów.jpg[edit]

Low resolution photo without EXIF data from uploader who has uploaded several copyvio photos. Unlikely to be own wor per COM:PRP, if so it should be confirmed via VRT. ~Cybularny Speak? 12:40, 7 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Autor jest podany jest jego zgoda - licencja. Autor jest jednym z właścicieli fabryki. Pamulab (talk) 07:06, 9 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Seal of Anchorage, AK.png[edit]

This file was initially tagged by Illegitimate Barrister as duplicate (Dupe) and the most recent rationale was: Image:Ancsymbol.png  — billinghurst sDrewth 13:18, 7 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File was overwritten contrary to policy, ho2wever, the original is not of high quality, and the community would do well to consider it worthy of removal.  — billinghurst sDrewth 13:20, 7 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Umbrella Academy.svg[edit]

This file was initially tagged by Goldsztern as duplicate (Duplicate) and the most recent rationale was: d|Umbrella Academy Netflix.svg; not exaqct as white space differs, that said, we don't need the top white space  — billinghurst sDrewth 13:43, 7 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Lord Lovat at Flamme of Memory at Sword Beach (14628945328).jpg[edit]

Sculpture by British sculptor Ian Rank-Broadley (b. 1952) installed in France. There is no freedom of panorama for 3D works in France. Günther Frager (talk) 14:50, 7 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Files uploaded by K2-18 (talk · contribs)[edit]

I am the uploader of these files. I would like to delete these files. But these files are old and speedy deletion is not available. Therefore, I submit a deletion request. --K2-18 (talk) 15:03, 7 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please provide a reason. Krd 09:24, 14 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Many of the photos are relatively poor quality, taken with cheap cameras. I was also adding a lot of unhelpful photos of the inside of certain buildings. I canceled the request to remove the high quality photos. Is it not possible to delete a post at the request of the uploader? --K2-18 (talk) 15:17, 14 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Саидумрон Саидов.jpg[edit]

no author - ergo: wrong license. Xocolatl (talk) 15:42, 7 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Partido futuro.png[edit]

Esta foto debería ser removido por violación del derecho del Autor (Copyvio) AbchyZa22 (talk) 16:17, 7 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Willem Jansen.webp[edit]

The image is likely from [5], but lacks the essential information (photographer, publish date) to infer its copyright status. 0x0a (talk) 16:23, 7 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:20130504-IMG 2260 (8746054434).jpg[edit]

geoloc wrong https://picsaroundme.com/#21.336942253991765/14.669628436253177/-17.398538384658423/29235917 Tbo47 (talk) 17:56, 7 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:20130504-IMG 2248 (8744749229).jpg[edit]

geoloc is wrong https://picsaroundme.com/#22/14.669620464239003/-17.39856160420777/29235913 Tbo47 (talk) 17:57, 7 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Frank Forde - London 1945.jpg[edit]

James Jarché died in 1965. Per UK law, copyright expires after 70 years from the author's death. This photograph will be inside the UK's public domain in 2036. Also the URAA restored US copyright, so this file will be eligible for undeletion only after 2041. 83.61.247.43 18:05, 7 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]


File:July Reflections.jpg[edit]

Artwork is not public domain due to age (artist died 1977, so undelete in 2073). Or is it possibly PD due to {{PD-US-no notice}}? --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 18:02, 7 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]


File:Mongolian Goats with Genghis Khan Equestrian Statue.jpg[edit]

Likely fails COM:DM. The mere fact that this photo was taken from a great distance from the statue does not make it de minimis.
This file also likely fails de minimis because it fails several of the guidelines at COM:DM#Guidelines:

  • The file is in use to illustrate the statue on the Chinese, English, Korean and Spanish Wikipedias.
  • The file is categorised in relation to the statue.
  • The statue is referenced in the filename.
  • The statue is referenced in the description.
  • If the statue were to be removed from the file, it would make the derivative work radically different, but potentially still useful.
  • Other contextual clues indicate the statue is the reason for the creation of the file: The uploader has uploaded files of other country views such as File:Zheltura-1.JPG and File:Tymelik.jpg, so I think the uploader intended the countryside to be the main subject of the image. Nevertheless, as stated above, the mere trait of a photo of a copyrighted work taken from a great distance does not make it de minimis. JohnCWiesenthal (talk) 19:09, 7 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • The file is in use to illustrate the statue on the Chinese, English, Korean and Spanish Wikipedias – not our problem at all
    The file is categorised in relation to the statue – and? This photo is categorized here. We may be inclusionist in regards to categorization.
    The statue is referenced in the filename – rename it.
    The statue is referenced in the description – maybe because it is in photo and the description is supposed to describe the photo? Anyway, change it if it disturbs you. An obvious abusive deletion request.  Speedy keep, as per COM:INUSE. RodRabelo7 (talk) 22:02, 22 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
 Speedy keep this is 90% goats, 9% steppe and 1% tiny blurry statue. Clearly de minimis. Dronebogus (talk) 15:32, 1 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Files uploaded by NCanny2 (talk · contribs)[edit]

Hat and Elk illustrations appear well above TOO. No free license at source, and indeed unloaded in bulk with blatant copyvio logs.

Эlcobbola talk 19:21, 7 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:The Naked Truth (poster).jpg[edit]

The {{PD-Egypt}} requires that the work (a painting in this case) to be published in Egypt before 1974 and in the US before 1946. The former holds (the film is from 1963), but the latter clearly fails. Günther Frager (talk) 19:41, 7 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Sunset-HD-188753.ogv[edit]

This file was initially tagged by Юрий Д.К. as duplicate (duplicate) and the most recent rationale was: NASA Scientist Finds World With Triple Sunsets.ogv|user=Юрий Д.К.; colouration looks different, though otherwise it looks similar  — billinghurst sDrewth 20:23, 7 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Templeuve. Faubourg de Roubaix.svg[edit]

This file was initially tagged by Rubýñ as duplicate (Duplicate) and the most recent rationale was: Templeuve. Faubourg de Roubaix.jpg  — billinghurst sDrewth 20:30, 7 January 2024 (UTC) No reason has been cited. Francis Hannaway (talk) 21:01, 7 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Muriel Robin 1.jpg[edit]

This file was initially tagged by FMSky as duplicate (dup) and the most recent rationale was: Muriel Robin par Francis Hannaway 2016.jpg

Not exact duplicate, though the cropped part contains a copyright statement and the bottom of the image. For community consensus.  — billinghurst sDrewth 20:46, 7 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • this is just this photo

    but without color correction and with watermark so i dont see the point in keeping it --FMSky (talk) 23:09, 7 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    File:Xianbei.jpg[edit]

    This file was initially tagged by ZimskoSonce as duplicate (Duplicate) and the most recent rationale was: Story of the Five Hundred Robbers (535–557 CE), Mogao Cave 285, Dunhuang, China.jpg; colouration differences, thoiugh guessing only one will be more accurate  — billinghurst sDrewth 20:48, 7 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    File:Frankfurt-Bockenheim Adalbertstr.23.jpg[edit]

    no source, no author. Uploader is a sockpuppet of User:Messina (global ban) Xocolatl (talk) 20:57, 7 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    File:Frankfurt-Bockenheim Adalbertstraße 10-16 1906.jpg[edit]

    WMF-banned user, no source, no author... Xocolatl (talk) 21:01, 7 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    File:Frankfurt-Bockenheim, Adalbertstr.11-5.jpg[edit]

    WMF-banned user (sockpuppet of User:Messina), no source, no author Xocolatl (talk) 21:06, 7 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    Files found with Special:Search/Wehrmann Wohlfahrt[edit]

    This 1915 poster is the work of German artist Erich Wohlfahrt, who died in 1961. So the work is still protected by copyright in Germany, and the files should be deleted. They can be restored in 2032.

    Rosenzweig τ 21:08, 7 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]


    File:A picture of Move It!™ creations..jpg[edit]

    I hate it ThisThingAgain (talk) 21:13, 7 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    Files uploaded by Mikebrown7[edit]

    User:Mikebrown7 is a sockpuppet of User:EdwinAlden.1995, warned multiple times and blocked for copyright violation. See:

    He's now blocked indefinitely, and some of his uploads with this account seem to be copyvios as well:

    Thank you --Titlutin (talk) 21:38, 7 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    Files in Category:The Ink Spots[edit]

    These sound recordings are protected under the Music Modernization Act of 2018. They will enter the public domain in 2040, 2041, and 2058 based on respective publication years of 1939, 1940, and 1947.

    SDudley (talk) 22:04, 7 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]


    File:Susanne Heynemann.png[edit]

    Image is not available under the indicated license. Image is not in the public domain of the United States yet (Commons:URAA). Sjoerd de Bruin (talk) 22:33, 7 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    •  Delete per nom. Stated CC license not supported by source site; lacking real source info, cannot be assumed to be out of copyright. Currently in use in nl:w -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 23:15, 7 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      published over 70 years ago, and
      the original author's actual identity was not publicly disclosed in connection with this image within 70 years following its publication.
      That is the case here, so it does meet all of the criteria.
       Keep Mondo (talk) 12:14, 8 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • What does the US have to do with this? The license clearly states that the copyright expired in the EU. The US doesn't have any say in that. Mondo (talk) 12:14, 8 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      Since Commons is hosted in the United States images also need to be in the public domain there. Sjoerd de Bruin (talk) 13:45, 8 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      That's not how it works. We endlessly discussed that a while back on NL:WP with Jade Mintjens Amelie Albrecht and the conclusion was that we only have to abide the law of the country that the photo or Wikipedia article applies to. So in this case, because of NL:WP, Dutch and Belgian law (and European law).
      Edit: name corrected. There were separate ongoing discussions at that time, so I confused the two. Amelie Albrecht is the one I meant. Mondo (talk) 14:07, 8 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      Commons:Licensing is clear:

      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.

    Sjoerd de Bruin (talk) 17:57, 8 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    But the policy is also clear. See Natuur12's response below. Mondo (talk) 20:54, 8 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    •  Delete Com:L states the following: “Files nominated for deletion due to the URAA should be evaluated carefully, as should be their copyright status under US and local laws. A mere allegation that the URAA applies to a file cannot be the sole reason for deletion. If the end result of copyright evaluation is that there is significant doubt about the freedom of a file under US or local law, the file must be deleted in line with the precautionary principle”. In my opinion, this nomination is a case of “mere allegation” and therefor policy doesn’t warrant deletion due to a potential URAA issue. For URAA we shifted the burden of proof partly to the nominator.
    • However, we have insufficient evidence that the current licensing tag is correct ({{PD-EU-no author disclosure}}). The applied tag comes with a disclaimer. Namely: “Reasonable evidence must be presented that the author's name (e.g., the original photographer, portrait painter) was not published with a claim of copyright in conjunction with the image within 70 years of its original publication.” The source is a secondary publication, not confirming the author status of the photograph. This isn’t reasonable evidence. Reasonable evidence would for example be a national archive listing the photograph as “unknown author”. Natuur12 (talk) 18:34, 8 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]


    File:Mike Lane 1956.jpg[edit]

    No, "The country of origin of this photograph" is NOT Italy. It is a still from a US movie from US producers with US actors, shot in the US. 178.9.152.52 23:21, 7 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    File:Humphrey Bogart and Mike Lane 1956.jpg[edit]

    No, "The country of origin of this photograph" is NOT Italy. It is a still from a US movie from US producers with US actors, shot in the US. 178.9.152.52 23:22, 7 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    File:Humphrey Bogart and Mike Lane 1956 (cropped).jpg[edit]

    No, "The country of origin of this photograph" is NOT Italy. It is a still from a US movie from US producers with US actors, shot in the US. 178.9.152.52 23:22, 7 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    File:Mike Lane and Angela Stevens 1956.jpg[edit]

    No, "The country of origin of this photograph" is NOT Italy. It is a still from a US movie from US producers with US actors, shot in the US. 178.9.152.52 23:22, 7 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    File:Flag of Somalia (Alternate Color).svg[edit]

    duplicate file of File:Flag of Somalia.svg ArgenBallMapper (talk) 23:45, 7 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    File:Flag of South Sudan Independence Day.svg[edit]

    duplicate file of FIle:South Sudan Independence Day flag.svg ArgenBallMapper (talk) 23:45, 7 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    File:Fiddlers house Colum.djvu[edit]

    No. The work was published in 1907 and lists on page 8 that "Dramatic and all other rights are reserved here and in America." To me, this indicated it had been simultaneously published in the U.S. However, I am willing to admit that I may have misunderstood the formal requirements. My main concern is being seen as a copyright violater when all notices on my page are from honest mistakes and not intentional copyright violations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Packer1028 (talk • contribs) 00:45, 8 January 2024‎ (UTC) (UTC)Reply[reply]

    •  Comment This is a challenged speedy deletion nomination. The rationale for the original nom was: First published in the UK in 1906, and not simultaneously published in the US, by an author who died in 1972. It is thus still covered by a pma. 70 copyright term in the UK (even if its pub. +95 US copyright term has expired). The speedy nom was housekeeping following a copyvio discussion on English Wikisource (for the local artefacts hosted there). --Xover (talk) 10:40, 8 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    •  Delete This is a play script in book form, first published in Dublin, Ireland in 1907 by Maunsel & Co. Its author is Padraic Colum (1881–1972). Since the copyright term in the UK is pma. 70 this copyright will not expire until after 1972 + 70 = 2042. Any US term of protection would have been publication +95 years, and has long since expired (at the end of 2002), so this is unquestionably public domain in the US. However, since Commons policy requires works to be public domain in both the US and the country of origin, it is ineligible for hosting on Commons (it is eligible for hosting on English Wikisource, however, since that project only requires works to be public domain in the US).
      The uploader took the copyright statement in the work—Dramatic and all other rights are reserved here and in America. (my emphasis)—to mean that the book had been simultaneously published in the US, and was therefore a US work for copyright purposes and for the purposes of Commons' policy.
      However, simultaneous publication is fairly rigidly defined and requires actual publication (offering for sale) in the US to have occurred no later than 30 days after its UK publication. While large publishers like Oxford University Press, who had offices across the world specifically to make sure they got copyright protection in all jurisdictions, did routinely publish simultaneously, the same cannot be assumed in the absence of actual evidence for smaller publishers. OUP gives place of publication as "London, New York, Dehli, Hong Kong, etc.", while place of publication for this book is "Dublin" (and the publisher is very much a local publisher).
      Neither can the copyright statement be taken as indicative of simultaneous publication. Copyright statements were not required in the UK, but it was still common to include them "just because". You'll find plenty of examples of it in books from this era. You'll also find plenty of examples of constructions such as the one in this book, where they specify various specific rights they reserve. For example, I've seen several instances where they specifically reserve the "right of translation" and even go so far as to specify "including for Scandinavian languages". These are all various forms of "voodoo practice"—similar to how everyone kept adding general copyright statements long after that requirement was dropped in the US—triggered by some single incident somewhere that someone heard of (think of it like email signature disclaimers).
      And indeed, the first trace of this play in the US is in an announcement from Little, Brown & Co. in The St. Louis Star and Times for October 30, 1916: In his three Irish plays [The Fiddler's House, The Land, and Thomas Muskerry], which are now published in this country [the US] for the first time, Mr. Colum presents life as it is lived in Ireland.
      In other words, while the assumption based on the copyright statement that this book was simultaneously published in the US was a reasonable one (no criticism of the uploader is intended here!), it is also an incorrect one: one needs to find explicit evidence to support such an assumption for all but the most obvious cases (e.g. OUP et al, and even then only for some of the bigger / mainstream works) and that is not present here. --Xover (talk) 14:12, 8 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/2024/01/07&oldid=847114015"