Commons:Deletion requests/2024/01/10

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
9 January 2024
11 January 2024
Deletion requests on 10 January 2024

January 10[edit]

Serbian lands in the 9th century[edit]

(1)

There's some issue with tracking the history of the original File:Serb lands04.png which was in 2013 renamed "Serb lands in the 9th century (en).png". This map was created by User:PANONIAN on Serbian Wikipedia in or before 2005 (based on Serb_lands02.jpg; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File_talk:Serb_lands04.png) and moved to Commons in 2006 by User:Electionworld. It has basically two versions (this and this basic type). According to the claims by user Panonian in the linked talk page discussion on English Wikipedia, the file was primarily based on "Istorijski atlas" (1999, publisher Geokarta, location Belgrade). In that atlas the description of the map was, in English, "Serbian lands in 9th-10th century" among other details, showing that the original sourced map itself is a confusing synthesis of different centuries and historical contexts (late 9th en:Petar of Serbia and after 10th century assumed expansion during en:Časlav of Serbia#State borders for which there's no evidence in primary sources and was never well argued and sometimes is omitted in secondary sources because simply there's no evidence in historical sources to know what the borders looked like during his time). It is also confusing that the file on Wikipedia/Commons was titled only mentioning the 9th century (also instead of very late 9th century), although it is misleading mentioning only the 9th century or 9th-10th century, but also only the 10th century because such borders did not exist at the time. Until now nobody could verify the original map, but assume it can be established to have been kinda based on this map (Istorijski atlas, image; from 2005, publ. Geokarta, editor Nebojša Jovanović). The source map is identical to "second type" from 2005, while kinda identical to the "first type" from 2005 (with different western border on river Vrbas; "first type"'s "improved version" is OR/SYNTH as has some unsourced and unexplainable editing). On the link can be also seen two other maps on the left of it, but their borders of Serbia/Serbs are evidently even more exaggerated, claiming for Serbia/Serbs almost whole of Bosnia and Herzegovina (for more issue see en:Bosnia (early medieval), which modern scientific literature treats more as an independent polity), pushing the early medieval Croatia/Croats much westward similar to modern borders, and lands of en:Stari Ras/en:Raška (region) which became Serbian only in the mid-12th century pushing the Bulgarians/Byzantines much eastward. All such borders are not supported in historical sources and generally in scientific literature. It is obvious that this maps were created with pro-Serbian ideological-political narrative in the years of en:Yugoslav wars when such narratives were pushed by the nationalistic propaganda (but something similar could be found even in respective neighbouring sources – so all sources from the same time period should be carefully evaluated and used in comparison to other sources, or better simply avoided, because exist more reliable national sources in the last 10-15 years, international sources in the last 30 years and those published during the period of Socialist Yugoslavia).

Besides that source, user PANONIAN listed a number of other sources, but mostly unreliable links (which are basically showing copies of the same map). From the sources, en:Vladimir Ćorović (d. 1941) "Ilustrovana istorija Srba" (supposedly expanded edition of originally unreleased work, considering how it is described it is obviously edited by others, released 2005) has this map for the 10th century (which has different western border on river Vrbas with Croatian border being longer and more eastward, and with different eastern border including Ras); Petrit Imami is not a scientist; en:Sima Ćirković (d. 2009) "Srbi među evropskim narodima" (2004; English edition) has this map for 950 CE (with roughly the same western border at river Vrbas, but different eastern border without Stari Ras which is correct). Hence it seems that the user PANONIAN while creating the "first type" map predominantly based it on the stated original source "Istorijski atlas" (1999-2005), keeping the eastern border including Stari Ras and surrounding land, but putting the border on river Vrbas.

Serbian historians en:Mihailo Dinić, Ilija Sindik, Dragoljub Pavolvić, and en:Svetozar Radojčić wrote the VII chapter "Srpske zemlje u ranofeudalno doba (do XII. Stoljeća)" in Historija naroda Jugoslavije (1953, en:Školska knjiga, Zagreb), showing for the time an elevated level of critical viewpoint and neutrality which would lack in some later Serbian scholars. Correspondingly, the Serbian academic historian and geographer Ilija Sindik was also obligated making maps and for the first section about early medieval Serbia written by Dinić made a map "Srpska država sredinom X. stoljeća" (Serbian state in the middle of the 10th century) looking like this map, with text "Državne granice nisu unesene, jer se ne mogu pouzdano utvrditi" (State borders aren't included, because they cannot be reliably determined), with almost identical position and depiction of the name Srbija/Serbia can be seen below in a good map (File:Balkans925.png). Also, relevant for other derivative maps below, according to Sindik this map (with part of border line having "?" marks) is what's looks like "Dukljanska država u drugoj polovici XI. stoljeća" (Dioclean/'Serbian' state in the second half of the 11th century).

Another problem is that there's not only one file, but the fact that the original file/idea was repeatedly copied, and also titled to represent different centuries from 9th to 10th up to 11th century. These are its derivative, COM:Dupe (duplicate) and COM:Redundant (redundant) files also for deletion:

1st type

2nd type

3rd type

4th type

From them were made identical 11th century (?!) derivatives of 10th century derivatives of 9th century original file, also for deletion:

(2)

In addition to that, there exist also other poor and not used files spreading even more extreme fringe propaganda, also for deletion:

This file was created/uploaded by User:Kbh3rd in 2005. Arguably the worst map of them all, as it has nothing to do at all with the description of Serbian and other borders in the 10th century De Administrando Imperio. As was observed almost 15 years ago ([1]), it is based on an unreliable 2004-2005 source which was not officially published, written by an unauthoritative and almost anonymous author Aleksandar J. Vukosavljević (there's hardly any information about them, but according to Google search it is a en:Greater Serbia propagandist and amateur possibly with fake name, link, link). The map is identical to the map in the source ([2], [3]), with some striking similarities to the 1999-2005 map & user Panonian's map. It is nothing alike the map of other listed source Arnold Toynbee - Constantine Porphyrogenitus And His World Compressed (1973, link).

These files were created/uploaded by User:SerbianPaleontologist in 2017. Like the previous map, are pure wishful thinking, not even "science fiction" - a total fantasy. The maps are evidently identical to the map by Aleksandar J. Vukosavljević's unreliable source which is listed. Some files have additional original research editing (if cannot be called even as a "research" because nothing in other sources supports such visual projection). They are not based on any other listed international and national source, some of which are even from 19th century (with outdate issues). The lists of sources are again used only as a ploy to make it seem as if the author evaluated various sources before making the map - sometimes not even listing the actual source the maps were based on, making it difficult for other editors to verify its source and (in)accuracy.

Conclusion:

There already exist other better maps on Commons based on international scientific literature for the respective time period (9-10th century), although some of them have other inaccuracies but not of such a scale and most importantly not of Serbian borders. These are File:Europe 814.svg and its derivative named File:Balkans in the 9th century.png, because the borders didn't change much throught the 9th century but even 10th century, is a map created by editors from a 19th century original which has many inaccuracies, with corrections based on relevant and reliable scientific literature; File:Balkans850.png; File:Map of the Balkans in the 10th century.png (arguably most accurate and satisfying for all viewpoints); File:Balkans925.png; File:Central and Eastern Europe around 950 AD.png (has a distorted perspective of space).

In short, the maps requested for deletion in each case were made using only 1 source with dubious reliability and neutrality (often instead of attributing one source listed bunch of other unrelated references and links to make it seem they are based on more sources or editor's evaluation of various sources or same/very similar borders can be found elsewhere, but do not). Files with such an idea and sheer number of derivative copies make a confusing mess with misleading representation and impressions about the history. Also, all maps have no release or source given for the underpinning map of Europe and program used which must be verifiable per COM:PRP as could be violating copyrights.

I am requesting deletion of all these files (and related derivative/duplicates of the same file/idea; with the exception of one "2nd type" version file - File:Serb lands in the 10th century (en).png - because is identical to the sourced map from an atlas and useful as an example of exaggerated depiction of borders, but needs editing of the description and having a detailed notification of having specific factual inaccuracies so it would be more careful/less used and copied around). Some of these files are not used anywhere on Wikipedia. These are files of poor quality, based on unreliables sources, original research-synthesis, mistitled, for which subject and time period already exist better maps. Their educational purpose is seriously twarted and misleading because are based on fringe theorization and nationalistic propaganda which was not in good faith. There were made too many duplicate and redundant derivatives of the original file, spreading further the propagandist representation of history, and with sheer quantity making it seem to have weight. Making and having such files for spreading further such propagandist visual viewpoint is ultimately not in good faith/constructive/neutral and hence not of educational purpose.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 01:11, 10 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Keep. While I understand your frustration, most of these images appear to be COM:INUSE on one or more articles. Omphalographer (talk) 04:44, 10 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, but they are misused and overused on other Wikipedia editions (articles poorly edited/watched anyway). I or anyone else could go there now and replace them with better images, then almost none would be INUSE. Currently not in use on any article:
 Delete. Map is syntesis of many sources, and there are no sources for medieval Serbia till Vrbas river. Between Vrbas and river Bosnia is Vrbas county, which is part of latter Slavonia, which was made as succesor to Pannonian Croatia. Also, more than half of Croatian Imota county is in the map part of Zahumlje, which was only eastern of Neretva river.
Why are southern adriatic sclavinias referenced as Serbian? DAI is half of the 10. century, and it doesn't include Diocletia.
Upper Neretva should be part of Zahumlje, or Croatia (in DAI Croatia is north of Zahumlje).
Serbia should be only till Srebrenica, and around Upper Bosnia there should be "little country" Bosnia. Ras should be part of Bulgaria, etc. --Čeha (talk) 20:06, 10 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Katherine Bennell-Pegg Astronaut.jpg[edit]

User's only upload, highly unlikely to be a valid "own work" selfie Fuzheado (talk) 03:40, 10 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

Promotional files.

Spinixster (talk) 07:30, 10 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Keep for File:2016 erster-im-Hause-PARTZSCH-gefertigter-Generator-6f2c956a.webp, Images showing technical equipment are clearly in scope. PaterMcFly (talk) 10:07, 10 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The file was provided by the PARTZSCH Group via their website and we need a VRT permission from them. 0x0a (talk) 18:56, 10 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
True, I was expecting the uploader to be a company rep, as normally PR people upload such advertising content. PaterMcFly (talk) 12:09, 11 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Sapranthus pinedai.jpg[edit]

This image (of the full tree) does not appear in the given source. However, the bottom half of it is in the given source (Fig. 2, C), and the source is under the CC-BY 4.0 license. Hoping someone with more experience woirking with journal articles can shed light on this. (There is a much larger version of the image, with slightly different color balance, on Twitter). The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 07:39, 10 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Surinaamse pom ovengerecht.JPG[edit]

This file is a scaled-down version of File:Pom gerecht.JPG. Melsj (talk) 07:49, 10 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Comment same image, though not an exact duplicate (declined there). One of the pair is cropped.  — billinghurst sDrewth 09:39, 10 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Giuseppe Barone al lavoro.jpg[edit]

It's pretty doubtful this is the uploaders own work since Giuseppe Barone's died in the mid 1950s and there's zero evidence the file is freely licensed in the meantime. So the image should be deleted as COPYVIO unless someone can provide evidence to the contrary. Adamant1 (talk) 11:08, 10 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Copyright on "simple photographs" lasts for 20 years. Otherwise it's 70. So I guess it comes down to how you define "simple." In this case it looks posed. So I'd say it isn't. Otherwise no photograph taken in Italy could be deleted as COPYVIO. --Adamant1 (talk) 06:38, 11 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If the photographer is really anonymous, it would still be PD, as the image is more than 70 years old. But not old enough for PD-old-assumed according to commons rules. PaterMcFly (talk) 12:14, 11 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
True. But then it only says the photograph is anonymous because RAN changed it to say that from "own work" after I nominated the file for deletion. So there's no way to know if it's actually anonymous or not. A photograph certainly doesn't magically become anonymous just because a user changes the description on it to try and make the file look more legitimate. Same goes for the date BTW. Originally it said the photograph was from the 1950s, but RAN changed it after I opened this to say it was from the 1920s. --Adamant1 (talk) 14:08, 11 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • You are nominating for deletion because it was not taken in 2019 and the license is wrong, and it was not taken by F.cirrone. yet when the information is corrected you restore the incorrect information. Is your goal to fix mistakes, or just get the image deleted? You must agree the image is more than 20 years old. As to PD-Italy. The license distinguishes between "works of photographic art" and "simple photographs". For example this is a "work of photographic art": File:Salvador Dali A (Dali Atomicus) 09633u.jpg with elaborate staging and costuming. Works of art are in museums, as is the the Dali image. "Simple photographs" are sold to the sitter or kept by the family or given to friends. Pressing the shutter to take an image is something a monkey can do. See : File:Macaca nigra self-portrait (rotated and cropped).jpg. This is not the image of a 63 year old man. This is an image of a man in his 30s or 40s. He lacks grey hair and crows feet around his eyes. --RAN (talk) 18:04, 11 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yet when the information is corrected you restore the incorrect information What were you basing the information on? I could really care less if someone wants to fix something in the description, but it's not "correcting" anything to just pick a random decade and source. You don't know if the photograph was taken in the 1925. Otherwise you should have provided a reference in the DR as a courtesy. Otherwise it just looks like you picked a date that would be closest to the term expiring in the United States. While I agree that it isn't 20 years old, that doesn't mean it was created in 1925 since he looks older then his mid 30s in the photograph. Otherwise what source are you basing the date on and how do you know it's a scan?
In general I'd say it's not good practice to alter files that are nominated for deletion. At least not without making a note of it the DR before you do it. Otherwise people will be voting and commenting based on outdated, possibly bad information. Plus, the person who opened it should have the option to retract the DR if new information comes along that shows the file is PD. They obviously can't do that if they don't know the file was changed though. --Adamant1 (talk) 19:41, 11 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Estimating dates based on contextual clues, and the birth and death years is done to every image prior to cameras recording the date. Everyone should check the file history whenever they work on an image. If you think that correcting incorrect-data is wrong, then lobby to have files locked when they are nominated for deletion. Until then there is no rule, just a personal preference. Restoring incorrect information during the up to 6-month nomination period, just leaves bad information to be copied elsewhere. --RAN (talk) 20:22, 18 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Now your just being disingenuous. I never said I have a problem with people "estimating dates based on contextual clues" or whatever. Just to repeat myself since you didn't seem get it the first time, what I have a problem with is someone estimating the date of an image after it's nominated for deletion in order to make the photograph seem like it's in the public domain. Especially when it's done without evidence and/or the person doesn't leave a note about the change in the DR. All you had to do was leave a message saying you changed the date based "X, Y, and Z" and I probably would have cared less. But you changed it without discussing or mentioning it, and to date that was clearly picked to right before the cut off for a work to be public domain in the United States. Both of which of just come off as bad faithed gaming of the system. Again, especially since you didn't say anything about it. --Adamant1 (talk) 22:29, 18 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Anonymous - Chasing Edward Snowden Full Documentary.webm[edit]

I'd like to nominate this for discussion, it doesn't necessarily have to be deleted at least I hope so. This documentary seems to be "Terminal F/Chasing Edward Snowden"; it thus should be titled properly and provide accurate credit. See the video description. I don't know how films are best credited but maybe roughly like: "Directors: John Goetz, Poul-Erik Heilbuth; Writers: John Goetz, Poul-Erik Heilbuth, Klaus Nedergaard". However, I don't know if the film is actually CCBY, maybe this yt account just rehosted the film. That it's also on the Internet Archive here suggests there is some merit in thinking this is actually CCBY alongside it having that license without being required to change it. So if it's indeed CCBY, I think the attribution needs to be changed. Prototyperspective (talk) 11:31, 10 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]


File:Emblem of the Fasci d'Azione Rivoluzionaria (Milan).jpg[edit]

This file was initially tagged by Pierpao as no permission (No permission since) Yann (talk) 11:51, 10 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Given that this is 110 years old, I'd like to see an explanation of why it is believed to be copyrighted. - Jmabel ! talk 18:35, 10 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"publication" can be a tortured term, particularly in the U.S., but distributing printed copies to lots of people is pretty much the pinnacle -- that would be publication anywhere. In the EU, the 70-year anonymous term starts at the "making available to the public", which includes broadcast and public display ("publication" is more the distribution of actual copies), so strict publication is not at issue. It's fine in the U.S. as PD-expired. Only if an author named themselves within 70 years of publication could it be copyrighted as 70pma in Italy. Technically it should be using {{PD-anon-expired}} and not PD-old-70-expired because PD-old implies the human author is known and they are known to have died more than 70 years ago.  Keep unless the particular author is known. Carl Lindberg (talk) 23:52, 10 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Dakar Biennale 2016 25.jpg[edit]

not well located https://picsaroundme.com/#17.565905041271915/14.650037295196839/-17.4275007498602/92300837 Tbo47 (talk) 11:52, 10 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Tbo47. The image represent the Ancien palais de justice in Dakar - as indicated in the category Category:Ancien palais de justice in Dakar, which is a well-known building in Dakar, location for many exhibitions and former palace of justice of the city.

Certainly you can improve the geographic coordinates. thanks and best regards, iopensa (talk) 12:33, 10 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

We can add the coordinates here d:Q124247115, iopensa (talk) 12:40, 10 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have added the coordinates 14.65215/-17.43197 and added the name of the building and the link to Wikidata on OpenStreetMap https://www.openstreetmap.org/edit#map=17/14.65215/-17.43197, best regards iopensa (talk) 12:53, 10 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Karte Bezirk Visp Gemeindeveraenderungen 1923.png[edit]

This file was initially tagged by Johnj1995 as Speedy (SD) and the most recent rationale was: G7|2=Begründung: Die Gemeinde Gründen hat nie zum Bezirk Visp gehört. Daher Karte ungültig. --Tschubby (talk) 17:49, 9 January 2024 (UTC); 2013 file and not eligible for speedy deletion  — billinghurst sDrewth 11:54, 10 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Bild02Mittendorfer.jpeg[edit]

"Own work" is a lie: According to https://www.bettina-mittendorfer.de/galerie it is © Nena Jägersberger. So Hans Wembacher would have to be Nena Jägersberger. But Nena Jägersberger is professional photographer. Why would she then write parts of the German Wikipedia article of Bettina Mittendorfer? Additionally according to File:Maurobergonzoli-atelier-espresso.jpg Hans Wembacher would even have to be photographer Seifert or Übler. 178.9.208.223 12:26, 10 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Maurobergonzoli-atelier-espresso.jpg[edit]

"Own work" is a lie: According to File:Bild02Mittendorfer.jpeg " Hanswembacher" would have to be photographer Nena Jägersberger, but at https://shop.maurobergonzoli.com/ is the very same picture with file name "CountryAtelier_Bergonzoli3_SeifertUebler_0818_1080x.jpg". "Seifert Übler" ist the name of a photographer duo. So "Hans Wembacher" would have to be Nena Jägersberger and Seifert or Übler at the same time. 178.9.208.223 12:27, 10 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Auf dem Main.jpg[edit]

Das Bild ist nicht in meinem Eigentum, sondern gehört meiner Frau W.Schäfer (talk) 12:34, 10 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Das Bild ist nicht in meinem Eigentum, sondern gehört meiner Frau W.Schäfer (talk)

Aber ist nicht die Person auf dem Bild deine Frau und du hast das Bild gemacht? Dann bist du Urheber, nicht sie. --PaterMcFly (talk) 12:15, 11 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Sonntagskind-Filmplakat.jpg[edit]

possible copyvio M2k~dewiki (talk) 13:34, 10 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Es handelt sich sowohl hier als auch beim Porträt und dem Fotoalbum um Aufnahmen aus dem Dokumentarfilm. Die Quelle ist angegeben und der Regisseur hat die Freigabe erteilt. Letzteres allerdings nur per Mail. Was muss ich tun, um eine Löschung der 3 Dateien abzuwenden? --Artessa (exDottoressa2) (talk) 09:48, 11 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Keep We have permission from the rights holder per Ticket:2024012210003033. --Mussklprozz (talk) 08:20, 23 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Verstehe ich das richtig und das Template
{{Delete}}
kann jetzt raus? Vielen Dank fürs Engagement! --Artessa (exDottoressa2) (talk) 09:32, 23 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Battle-of-bnachii.jpg[edit]

I am suspicious about the own work / 2022 claim. Original source and author of the painting is unknown. MKFI (talk) 14:18, 10 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:IGA 09.jpg[edit]

Different crop of a previously published photo: https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=842292797417103&set=pb.100049091726414.-2207520000&type=3, please provide license statement to email address shown at COM:VRT Adeletron 3030 (talk) 14:23, 10 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:NSB Burgermeester Jan Kooistra.jpg[edit]

Image is not available under the specified license, photographer died in 1991. Sjoerd de Bruin (talk) 14:43, 10 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:CARPETBRECHTBÜHNE40.jpg[edit]

Copyright violation. Established 1620 (talk) 15:01, 10 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have the full publishing rights to this picture, otherwise I wouldn't have uploaded it. Sigmund Perner (talk) 15:05, 10 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Sigmund Perner: In diesem Fall soll bitte der Urheber des Bildes (also der Fotograf, das ist anscheinend Bruno Tenschert) eine E-Mail an Wikimedia Commons schicken und bestätigen, dass die Datei hier unter einer freien Lizenz hochgeladen werden durfte. ({{self|cc-by-sa-4.0}} ist offensichtlich nicht zutreffend, da nicht vom Urheber hochgeladen). Details zum Vorgehen, zum Wortlaut der E-Mail und die E-Mail-Adresse siehe unter COM:VRT/de. --Rosenzweig τ 07:31, 15 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Danke für die Info, habe ich zwischenzeitlich auch schon von anderer Seite erhalten. Bruno Tenschert ist ein guter Bekannter von mir, hat aber keinen Wikipedia-Account und will auch keinen. Daher hat nun ein anderen Bekannter (mit Account) ein passendes Bild dem Artikel beigefügt. Muss ich denn jetzt mit diesem File hier (CARPETBRECHTBUEHNE40.jpg) noch irgendwas tun – wieder runternehmen oder löschen oder sonstwas – und wenn ja: wo und wie? (Sorry, bin noch ein Newbie hier…) Tausend Grüße, Sigmund Perner Sigmund Perner (talk) 15:31, 15 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Wenn die beschriebene Genehmigung nicht geschickt wird, löscht irgendwann ein Admin die Datei. Dazu musst du nichts weiter tun. Gruß --Rosenzweig τ 15:51, 15 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Sponsorizimet-3-KEIT.jpg[edit]

Looks like a video screenshot. 1989 (talk) 15:44, 10 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Maybe enlighten me how is "Looks like a video screenshot." a valid reason for deletion of a file? If it was a screenshot of a video the uploader had rights to, I'm pretty sure he could upload a screenshot of it. Mithoron (talk) 20:57, 22 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Marshall Plan - Orientation -Turkey NAID-36095-1949.mpeg[edit]

same file higher resolution using a better compression is uploaded: Marshall Plan - Orientation -Turkey NAID-36095-1949.ogv Whitneybess (talk) 15:49, 10 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:9782262085469-475x500-2.webp[edit]

non free - 2024 book cover ZimskoSonce (talk) 16:01, 10 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  •  Comment. The underlying image is certainly in the public domain. It's a print from the 1770s titled "Frontispiece to the Encyclopédie". As to whether putting a simple blue circle with title on top of that is a transformative creative work according to COM:TOO France is another question. IronGargoyle (talk) 02:39, 17 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Philatec Paris 1964 médaille d'argent (Ziad Zukkari).jpg[edit]

A medal designed in 1964 cannot be in the PD in France as works are protected for 70 years pma. Günther Frager (talk) 16:16, 10 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

ok, thanks you for the message. I'll do as you advise. Simboz (talk) 15:12, 11 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Reply to the deletion nomination I object to the request for deletion, on the following grounds. I start with my view on the matter, then I take up the issue of derivative works, simply because this concept was raised in the discussion following the deletion request:

  • The picture that I provided to WP is the picture of one side of a medal that was made in 1964 in France for the purpose of serving as a prize for the the Best stamps exhibited at a French stamp exhibition, Philatec 1964.
  • This side of the medal is relatively simple in its design, but crucially its design is little more than a reformatting of graphic material used otherwise in the context of Philatec 1964. The designation "PHILATEC 1964 PARIS" — in capital letters, using various but similar fonts, and in rounded shape like a postal rubber stamp — appears in all (or almost all) printed items related to Philatec 1964. Some additional very simple graphic elements, consisting of lines and a sort of horn, also appear in both the medal and other Philatec material. In addition to the said horn, which looks like being the element designed in the top centre of the medal, the medal also integrates a star, at the bottom, which is also part of the general Philatec design. Lastly, the medal has an empty rectangle on its right, which seems to simply fill an empty space.
  • For reference, other philatec material are to be found here:
  • A representation of the star can be seen on wikitimbres.rf: [4] and on catawiki.com: [5]
  • The name "PHILATEC 1964 PARIS", in various fonts and shapes, but always in capital letters, at: [6] and at: [7]
  • Conclusion: the design on this side of the medal quite obviously does not present any "creation of the mind" and fails to fulfil both requirements of "originality" and "individual character". Like most medals made for a practical purpose, it is the simple reformatting of pre-existing graphical material adjusted to fit well in the circular shape of a medal. Thus, the design of this side of the medal is not copyrightable.
  • This leads to the next question. Could the medal be protected under other provisions of IP law?
  • One route is the trademark law. It could be assumed that the original graphic material used to design the medal was itself protected as a trademark (both the name and its design and the rounded logo). Unlike copyrights, which last only for a limited period of time, trademarks last for as long as the trademark is actively used, even 100 or 200 years, without requiring the trademark owner to fill applications for extension. In that sense, it is a much stronger protection than copyrights. The flip side, which is directly relevant for the case at hand, is twofold. First, even if duly registered, a trademark protection automatically elapses, or disappears, if the trademark is no longer used for a some time. Second, unlike copyright, which is protected automatically, trademarks (and the corresponding logo), are protected only after filling of an application, which may include the detailed shape and graphism of the trademark and corresponding logo, in addition to the name of the mark.
  • Philatec 1964 was a one-shot, two-weeks event, that was not meant to be repeated and was actually never renewed. For this mere reason alone, even if a trademark had been registered, it would have elapsed more that 50 years ago. Besides, the material relating to Philatec 1964 is relatively homogenous, nevertheless it presents crucial variations and is not totally uniform. Different font types are used; the shape are sometimes horizontal and sometimes rounded, the work sequence differ as well, where "PHILATEC PARIS 1964" coexists with "PHILATEC 1964 PARIS" or "PHILATEC '64". If a trademark had been applied for and granted, it would require the registration of a very exact mark and logo, and one would rather expect that the registered design would then be used uniformly across all Philatec printed material. I tried to check if Philatec 1964 is registered as a trademark in France, and found nothing, which can be explained by either or both of those reasons. In addition, a trademark application form must indicate the owner of the mark, which has to be a juridical person or a natural person, while Philatec, as a one-shot two-weeks event, assuming it was constituted as juridical person, ceased to exist in the meantime.
  • Conclusion: the route of a possible trademark protection must be rejected, in the case at hand.
  • What other avenues are possible? One possibility is the so-called design patent.
  • A medal like this one, which is mainly an object made for utilitarian or practical purposes, may be protected by design patents. It is typical of utilitarian objects that the normal route for protection is a design patent, if such patentability exists in the national jurisdiction. Design patents do not impose requirements in term of threshold of originality, or individual character of the creator, they must be distinctive enough for the consumer to distinguish one object from other similar ones. Similar to trademarks, design patents are not automatic, but are granted only after successful application for registration by the owner. However, even under the assumption that a design patent had been granted for this medal in 1964, a simple design patent does not prevent shooting a picture of an object for illustrative purpose e.g. in wikipedia, and very logically wikipedia criteria for uploading of images do not address design patents.
  • Conclusion: the design patent route must also be reflected.
  • As stated above, I need to take up the issue of "derivative works" since this has been raised in the discussion following the deletion request.
  • In the discussion, it seemed that the request was motivated by some view that the medal could be a derivative work. I contested that view and I firmly maintain my position. The definition of a derivative work is rather clear in most jurisdictions, including France, and cannot capture a medal like this. First, it is not an a priori instance of derivative work, and second, it fails to meet, as already stated, the requirements of originality and individual character, which are applicable to derivative works.
  • After I challenged the fact that the medal would, per se, constitute a derivative work, the other discussant stated that my picture (rather than the medal itself) would be a derivative work and thus could not be uploaded. I equally reject that argument. This picture is a simple picture, shot with a mobile phone without particular preparation or skills. Really, anyone else could shoot that picture. And even assuming that this picture would be a derivative work, then it is my problem if I decide to upload it in Commons, and actually I think that people uploading their pictures are actually the preferred input to Commons, if I understand correctly. I am free to do whatever I want with this picture...
  • Conclusion the hypothesis of a possible protection as derivative work shall also be rejected, whether in respect of the medal itself being a derivative work, or in respect of my picture of the medal constituting a derivative work.
  • Based on the above considerations, I propose to reject the deletion request.
 Keep based on the above considerations. Simboz (talk) 16:26, 15 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Zéro de conduite (1933) par Jean Vigo, affiche.jpg[edit]

I am not sure if the artist for the poster is the Belgian painter, but if it is the case, it is not in the PD yet. Yann (talk) 17:19, 10 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]


File:Jay Sures.jpg[edit]

courtesy of UTA. article: https://news.pollstar.com/2022/09/14/uta-names-david-kramer-president-jay-sures-vice-chairman/ ZimskoSonce (talk) 17:41, 10 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:NateSharpHeadshot.jpg[edit]

© 2024 All Rights Reserved Mays Business School Texas A&M University ZimskoSonce (talk) 18:39, 10 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello there, this image is from Mays Business School. I work for Mays and have approval to use this image. There is also no copyright on the image. Thanks! BrookeatMays (talk) 23:46, 10 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Концертные программы Ансамбля "Кантеле".jpg[edit]

Copyright violation. Source: https://vk.com/photo-3480581_457246867. Attributed to Яков Берлин. Avsolov (talk) 18:59, 10 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Концертные программы Ансамбля "Кантеле" 3.jpg[edit]

Copyright violation. Source: https://vk.com/photo-3480581_457246881. Attributed to Яков Берлин. Avsolov (talk) 19:01, 10 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Files uploaded by Ad narragoniam (talk · contribs)[edit]

Artworks by Attila Mendly de Vetyemy (1911-1964). He was born in Hungary, but he resided in Portugal. These works are still copyrighted in both countries as they have 70 years pma protection. We can undelete these files in 2035, except for File:AMV TNSC 1941.jpg and File:AMV Busto do Infante D. Henrique 1960.jpg that we should undelete in 2037 and 2056 respectively due to URAA restoration.

Günther Frager (talk) 19:35, 10 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Dear Günther Frager,
Thank you for supervising the publication of these images. The images were published with permission from the sole heir of his work, her daughter Verónica de Vétyemy, under the general permission she granted to the publication and illustration of my book Attila Menddly de Vétyemy, Um Artista Húngaro na Lezíria (ISBN in the Wikipédia article on him).
Within the next week, if necessary, she will also issue a permission, similar to the one I sent, to Wiki Commons.
António Joel Ad narragoniam (talk) 15:32, 12 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Keep We have heir's permission for all those artworks per Ticket:2024020310005271. --Mussklprozz (talk) 20:41, 3 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Vas-kurz-press-photo.jpg[edit]

Bewilligung das Bildmaterial des Fotoservice, an dem dem Bund die Rechte zustehen, kostenfrei zu nicht kommerziellen Zwecken, zu redaktionellen Zwecken von Medien und zu Zwecken im Bereich der politischen Bildung zu vervielfältigen, zu verbreiten, zu senden, öffentlich vorzuführen oder im Internet zur Verfügung zu stellen. Eine darüber hinausgehende Nutzung, insbesondere für Werbezwecke, ist nicht zulässig. https://fotoservice.bundeskanzleramt.at/nutzungsbedingungen.html ZimskoSonce (talk) 20:07, 10 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@ZimskoSonce -. as i understood point 3, it gives right to use publicly on the internet as long as attribution is done? i updated license accordingly. let me know, thank you/danke. Noxoug1 (talk) 09:10, 11 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:1943 Два бойца.webm[edit]

Since this film was produced by an Uzbek film studio, its country of origin might be Uzbekistan, not Russia, placing it under Life + 70 years copyright. Huaqin (talk) 20:37, 10 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Миро Косев225434385049 n.jpg[edit]

Снимка: фейсбук на ПФК Крумовград. article: https://www.bta.bg/bg/news/sport/bg/382563-miroslav-kosev-vliza-v-shtaba-na-todor-yanchev-v-parviya-tim-na-tsska-1948 ZimskoSonce (talk) 20:40, 10 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:CMT Canada 2015 logo.png[edit]

Better version at File:CMT Canada 2015 logo.svg CMT Corus (talk) 23:20, 10 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This file was initially tagged by CMT Corus as Speedy (speedydelete) and the most recent rationale was: reason=Better version at File:CMT Canada 2015 logo.svg|subpage=File:CMT Canada 2015 logo.png|year=2024|month=January|day=10 - Not eligibe for speedy because of different file types but should probably be deleted The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 07:02, 11 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Logo VRAK.png[edit]

Better version at File:Vrak logo.svg Vrak Bell (talk) 22:46, 10 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This file was initially tagged by Vrak Bell as Speedy (speedydelete) and the most recent rationale was: reason=Better version at File:Vrak logo.svg|subpage=File:Logo VRAK.png|year=2024|month=January|day=10 - Not eligibe for speedy because of different file types but should probably be deleted The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 07:00, 11 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/2024/01/10&oldid=849155845"