Commons:Deletion requests/2024/01/14

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
13 January 2024
15 January 2024
Deletion requests on 14 January 2024

January 14[edit]

File:TreyLance21.jpg[edit]

While the listed source is under CC 3.0, i doubt that Time2Football is actually the copyright holder of this image/footage. Copyright violation. PizzaKing13 (talk) 01:52, 14 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Soy Wikipedista.webm[edit]

In reviewing this file, it's apparent that essential information is missing - specifically, details about the authorship and permissions related to camera work, lighting, makeup, costume design, and music. It's important to address this gap. Acknowledging the contributions of these professionals is not only a matter of courtesy but a legal imperative. Obtaining and documenting permissions, typically via OTRS, ensures compliance with copyright laws and respect for the creators' rights. The absence of this information could lead to legal complications and overlooks the significant input of these team members Wilfredor (talk) 06:41, 14 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This is an official work of Wikimedia Argentina Chapter...i think is pretty clear. Was paid with WMF fund and the copyright holder is the chapter. Mauricio V. Genta (talk) 13:43, 15 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:制度救世島黨徽.svg[edit]

Not simple enough to use in party emblem template, party emblem should have correct license John123521 (talk) 07:23, 14 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Kathleen Unger.jpg[edit]

Facebook size and quality, no metadata, nothing to support "own work" and blurry. Ellin Beltz (talk) 07:23, 14 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Oppose deletion. This photograph has been a part of the article since its creation 11 years ago, in February 2013. The image is obviously needed to identify this article's subject and whatever minor blurriness may be present, it is only perceptible when the photo is enlarged. When seen at standard infobox size, the image appears to depict standard clarity and should meet Wikipedia quality control. As for "own work", the author is listed as Monnaliza, a Wikipedian who has specified under "Licensing" that "I, the copyright holder of this work, hereby publish it under the following licenses:" and likewise indicated that "You are free: to share – to copy, distribute and transmit the work / to remix – to adapt the work". Short of having to initiate contact with user Monnaliza to request a notarized document certifying permission to publish this 11-year-old photo in Wikipedia, I feel that sufficient indication already exists of the photo's proper upload into Wikimedia Commons. —Roman Spinner (talk) 01:17, 18 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Susan Cole Speaker Election Jan 6 2023.png[edit]

{{PD-CSPAN}} does not apply to an election for Speaker of the House, since those are filmed not by the U.S. government but by C-SPAN itself (or other news organizations). Washington Post; C-SPAN copyright page (linked from PD-CSPAN) ("This does not include special floor sessions such as (but not limited to) Speaker elections, State of the Union addresses, and joint sessions, which may require a license."). And it should not be sent over to Wikipedia as fair use, since there are free alternatives (w:WP:NFCCP#1), such as stills from this video of her reading the 2019 impeachment inquiry resolution: [1]. SilverLocust 💬 07:52, 14 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Courtesy pings to @William Graham and Cryptic-waveform (from another discussion where this was recently nominated then withdrawn). SilverLocust 💬 07:59, 14 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
May require a liense. Given that usage of the property isn't for commercial use, and the policy by C-SPAN isnt given as a definitive statement where one does require a license, I dont see cause for removal. Given that C-SPAN is further accredited with the image, I dont see cause for deletion.
In other parts of their licensing statement, we are shown definitive license requirements, such as, "Congressional hearings, press conferences, and public appearances all require licensing", which explicitly fails to use the may tone and makes it mandatory. Unless we can resolve that this is definitively for all uses, including non-commercial use, and that C-SPAN somehow failed to communicate this properly.
If there are alternative forms of labelling the image, beyond what it currently is, with a more restrictive filing, then I would agree with doing that, however, what has been presented does not justify a file deletion, and is taking a very drastic and large action over far more reasonable ones. DougDommadome (talk) 17:21, 14 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@DougDommadome: Per Commons:License, "All copyrighted material on Commons (not in the public domain) must be licensed under a free license that specifically and irrevocably allows anyone to use the material for any purpose ... Commercial use of the work must be allowed". So it would not be enough that C-SPAN allows use of their non-PD work for non-commercial use. SilverLocust 💬 20:53, 14 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Would it not be a more sensible solution to change the license as opposed to a unilateral deletion? These are less destructive methods than what you're proposing.
I still disagree with the notion that C-SPAN would mandate this be deleted, as their copyright policy is phrased as "may" for this specific instance, while it is definitive in other instances. This is an egregious overstep with interpreting C-SPANs copyright policy. DougDommadome (talk) 23:40, 17 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
See Commons:Project scope for an explanation of the purpose of Wikimedia Commons. This website is fundamentally only for images/media that can be used by anyone for any purpose. SilverLocust 💬 04:51, 19 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I believe firmly that all copyright guidelines are being followed given that this is a non-commercial activity. Under the guidelines provided by C-SPAN, I would be willing to say that Speaker Elections when in non-commercial usage, are perfectly acceptable to be used. This may require a modification of the current licensing on the file, but not an outright deletion.
I say this under the guise of C-SPAN's licensing statement,
"C-SPAN does NOT permit unlicensed commercial use of any of its video programming (including coverage of federal government events) whether or not C-SPAN is attributed as the source of the video. Under this policy a license is required to use C-SPAN video for:
- Documentaries, films or television programs
- Distribution by broadcast, cable or satellite
- Corporate, trade or professional use.
- Compilation DVDs and the like.
- Any use that relies substantially on C-SPAN video to generate revenue.
- Any other use that C-SPAN believes enhances the value of an organization or entity."
Given that this file does fall under any of those categories, and is not utilized in Commons for commercial usage, it would be suitable to be have deletion staved off. If this does require some modification of the licensing to clarify that, that would be acceptable, but I find an outright deletion to be an overstep. DougDommadome (talk) 04:14, 26 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Are you even reading what I said? Wikimedia Commons does not host images on its site unless they are freely available for commercial use. It is not about what non-commercial use C-SPAN allows or whether there is a copyright violation. SilverLocust 💬 05:28, 5 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]


File:3368 vp01 v04 vogelperspektive.jpg[edit]

This file was initially tagged by Pentachlorphenol as Copyvio (copyvio)
Converted to regular DR to alloa for discussion, as our upload is 1 month older than the news-publication (15.09.2017). So, either they stole our image or both have a still unknown common source. -- Túrelio (talk) 09:12, 14 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think (without being able to prove true or wrong...) it is a promotional graphic which was spread by the company for given purposes and someone used it for the newspapers and some(other?)one uploaded it to commons. So it is either a violation of copyright, or incorrectly licensed work of art. Both would require a permit from the author of the computer-supported image / graphic which I do not see. --Pentachlorphenol (talk) 09:35, 14 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Bandera de Santa María de Valverde.jpg[edit]

This file was initially tagged by Rodelar as Speedy (speedy) and the most recent rationale was: copyright violation: https://www.laopiniondezamora.es/benavente/2023/07/17/santa-maria-valverde-estrena-bandera-89959765.html
Converted to regular DR to allow for discussion. The external hit has the image as JPEG is extremely far lower resolution (https://estaticos-cdn.prensaiberica.es/clip/dd213957-36d6-4203-b63a-69db6d01c181_21-9-aspect-ratio_default_0.jpg). So, it's hardly the source. However, both may have an as-of-yet not identified common source. -- Túrelio (talk) 09:38, 14 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

El autor del diseño, realización de la bandera y dueño del archivo original soy yo (BERNARDINO NINO). La imagen de la Opinión de Zamora publicada el 17 de Julio de 2023, se la envié yo por WhatsApp, por eso no tiene resolución. BERNARDINO NINO (talk) 17:02, 14 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Al margen de ello, no aparece publicado el blasón oficial aprobado que permita verificar la información. --Rodelar (talk) 21:21, 14 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
La descripción del escudo y bandera está publicado en el Boletín Oficial de La Junta de Castilla y León en 10 de Julio de 2023, página 515. La aprobación definitiva está en el Boletín Oficial de Castilla y León, número 150, página 71 del 16 de agosto del 2023. Expediente 45/2023. El ayuntamiento de Santa María de Valverde me encargó a mi el diseño y la realización de su Escudo y Bandera, y yo lo hice altruistamente. La Opinión de Zamora sabe perfectamente quien le envió el WhatsApp. El archivo original no lo puede tener nadie más que el Ayuntamiento de Santa María de Valverde, La Junta de Castilla y León y la Diputación de Zamora y yo. BERNARDINO NINO (talk) 09:58, 15 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
He consultado con la Opinión de Zamora, y me ha corroborado que los derechos del autor son de mi propiedad, ellos publicaron la información que yo les di. BERNARDINO NINO (talk) 12:35, 15 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Сталинградская область и Калмыцкая АССР.jpg[edit]

Dates of death of authors of this atlas are unknown. For example see Commons:Deletion requests/Pocket Atlas of the USSR, 11th ed., 1940 (renomination). — Redboston 09:51, 14 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:P31130-150425.jpg[edit]

Person died in 2009, can not be own work of 2023. Original date? Author? Copyright status? Drakosh (talk) 11:05, 14 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

TimedText:Negaraku instrumental.ogg.id.srt[edit]

Because the lyrics is similar with Malay Language (Official Athem of Malaysia) Baqotun0023 (talk) 12:14, 14 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:LogoKMS.jpg[edit]

out of scope  — billinghurst sDrewth 12:59, 14 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep. Is in use on the article in progress de:Benutzer:InstructorKMS/Krav Maga Survival. Emha (talk) 15:38, 17 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Solar Eclipse Shadow over Earth.jpg[edit]

False license. The photo was taken by French space agency CNES astronaut Jean-Pierre Haigneré, who is obviously not a NASA employee. See also: COM:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Félicette. 0x0a (talk) 13:29, 14 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:LocalNUTS3Oeste.svg[edit]

is not correct and there is a correct version File:CIM Oeste.svg Mestre Big Brother (talk) 13:59, 14 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Fiolentoren bij Vildersgats.jpg[edit]

No copyright status. Looks like a picture of a picture (see the fabric on which is has been printed). Probably dates the original picture from 1916. Thieu1972 (talk) 16:40, 14 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Each of these four illustrations of the same uploader doesn't mention a source or any author, which makes it imposible to verify their copyright status. -- Mdd (talk) 22:31, 2 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:XIV конференция "Проблемы фундаментальной подготовки в школе и вузе в контексте современности" 2019 12 12 (6).jpg[edit]

Номинирую как загрузивший; согласно положению об идентифицируемых людях и праву на частную жизнь Mark Ekimov (talk) 17:26, 14 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:XIV конференция "Проблемы фундаментальной подготовки в школе и вузе в контексте современности" 2019 12 12 (5).jpg[edit]

Номинирую как загрузивший; согласно положению об идентифицируемых людях и праву на частную жизнь Mark Ekimov (talk) 17:27, 14 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:CBS Sunday Morning (2023).png[edit]

The wordmark itself may well be below TOO (the most "complex" thing about it seems to be the inclusion of the CBS Eyemark), but this looks to be cropped from a screenshot of the TV title card (albeit not necessarily that particular image) for CBS News Sunday Morning and is not a CC0 "own work". Presumably there is a better, simpler source for the wordmark out there. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:20, 14 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Claudia Udenta.jpg[edit]

This file was initially tagged by 2A01:599:145:BDE7:64FD:5A99:AC90:4DB7 as Speedy (Löschen) and the most recent rationale was: Begründung: Verletzung von Bildrechten; kein öffentliches Bild, sondern ein persönliches Bild; nach DSGVO wurde die Einwilligung zu diesem Bild widerrufen und/oder nie erteilt. --2A01:599:145:BDE7:64FD:5A99:AC90:4DB7 19:09, 14 January 2024 (UTC); needs conversation  — billinghurst sDrewth 21:01, 14 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Patricio y Miguel Ángel Hernández.jpg[edit]

The image was published in 1976 in Argentina, and it was still protected by copyright in 1996, so the {{PD-1996}} tag doesn't apply. Thus, it is still copyrighted in the US. Following COM:PCP we cannot keep it. Günther Frager (talk) 21:33, 14 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You're right, sorry for the mistake. I didn't realize how many years the license was asking for. OswaldoGaɾes (talk) 00:50, 15 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
BTW I updated the licensing section with {{Not-PD-US-URAA}} tag, in case the copyright owner of this file does not wish to host it on Commons. OswaldoGaɾes (talk) 18:57, 17 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]


File:CAI 900-904 (Gaibola Chiesa).jpg[edit]

Sostituzione Sentinel447 (talk) 22:23, 14 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:ESCUDO UPM COLOR baja.jpg[edit]

It has a better, equivalent SVG file Marion Moseby (talk) 22:32, 14 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Files found with Special:Search/David Soul 1975[edit]

Not sure if this is Public Domain. The image in question is sourced from an ebay listing of just the photograph - but we have no info on the date or the author. How do we know this was published without a notice before 1978? Someone could have just printed it off the internet and is selling this as 'vintage'. Could have been an unpublished work at that time.

Typically, Publicity photos for TV/film from this time were issued in a distinct way. Typically in black and white (sometimes color), and included information about who published the photo and what the photo is promoting. You would see logos and such on the front or see a sticker affixed to the rear. Being issued in official news releases/Press Kits would consider them being published. (Examples: [2] & [3]) Reverse seraching the internet doesn't show this was ever issued as a publicity still. It would be great to keep an image of this nature, it could be Public Domain, I just don't believe there is solid evidence of so. So it should be removed under COM:PRP.

Any furthur info on this photo would be of value for this discussion.

PascalHD (talk) 23:37, 14 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/2024/01/14&oldid=850122259"