Commons:Deletion requests/2023/12/22

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
21 December 2023
23 December 2023
Deletion requests on 22 December 2023

December 22[edit]

File:Harold Lloyd's "Safety Last"- 1923.webm[edit]

CSD-F8. Inferior version. – Illegitimate Barrister (talk • contribs), 00:43, 22 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Files in Category:Vilniaus Sporto rūmai[edit]

The building was completed in 1971 by Eduardas Chlomauskas (1927–2004), Henrikas Vytautas Karvelis (1933–2012), Zigmantas Liandzbergis (1929–1993), and Jonas Kriukelis (1927–1985). There is no freedom of panorama in Lithuania. The copyright term of the country is 70 years, and the image can be undeleted in 2083.

A1Cafel (talk) 02:57, 22 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


 Oppose One of the main principles of the civil law is that of non-retroactivity, and this means that the current copyright law in Lithuania cannot be applied retroactively to a building completed in 1971, unless it was still copyrighted at the time the current law was issued and the law extended the duration of its copyright. At the time of the building's completion, copyright in Lithuania was governed by the laws of the Soviet Union and those of the Lithuanian SSR. It is very possible that, even under those laws, this abandoned building, a symbol of the Russian occupation in Lithuania, is still copyrighted (which would be very sad), but you must prove this when you request the deletion of the photos, not just blindly apply the "There is no freedom of panorama in [enter a country name]" tag on hundreds of photos.
Again, the building may indeed still be under copyright, but until this is proven, my vote is "oppose". --Nenea hartia (talk) 10:00, 25 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Oppose There is no confirmation that the building is under copyright so that photographs of the Sports Palace cannot be published on Wikimedia. Terminator216 (talk) 21:21, 25 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Sergia Melita Rodríguez.png[edit]

Caricature based on a photograph (derivative work). Considering that the person photographed is still alive, there is a possibility that the photograph it was based on is not in the public domain. Taichi (talk) 03:13, 22 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Hildaura Acosta de Patiño.png[edit]

Caricature based on a photograph (derivative work). Considering that the person photographed is still alive, there is a possibility that the photograph it was based on is not in the public domain. Taichi (talk) 03:34, 22 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

Maryland is not a state where government works are inherently public domain, with the website stating that the archive is "presented for reference purposes under the doctrine of fair use" which seems to contradict the {{Attribution}} license.

reppoptalk 07:33, 22 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:TCG Anadolu.png[edit]

copyright violation - YouTube uploader not likely copyright holder FOX 52 (talk) 07:51, 22 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Gilberto Isella.jpg[edit]

This file was initially tagged by ZioNicco as no source (No source since) MrKeefeJohn (talk) 10:58, 22 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

on it.wiki the same image (it comes from there) has been deleted because it has no source ZioNicco (talk) 13:36, 3 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

Block evasion by User:Enujrecneps, all uploaded a week after that user's block. No reason to believe that Spencer's wedding photo at File:June Spencer's wedding.jpg is in the public domain or (as is claimed here) was taken personally by the uploader. File:Spencer in 1946.jpg is only public domain if it was published anonymously around the date claimed, which I can't confirm and no clues about the source are given. File:Spencer in 1991.jpg is again unlikely to have been taken personally by the uploader at Buckingham Palace, probably a scan from a newspaper or biography. It would not yet be public domain 32 years on.

Belbury (talk) 13:30, 22 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Сканирование0218.jpg[edit]

Scanned photograph, authorship is dubious therefore. Andrei Romanenko (talk) 14:14, 22 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Keep if this is your only "evidence". Every photograph taken on film is scanned! What else? -- Herbert Ortner (talk) 19:11, 22 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This picture is uploaded as created on May 4, 2019. The house pictured on it had burned to ashes in 1998. I am old enough to have pictures from 1998 in my archive but I don't claim they are from 2019. Andrei Romanenko (talk) 21:10, 22 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This is the date automatically taken by the upload tool from the EXIF data that's written into the image by the scanner. Just take a look at "metadata" at the bottom of the page! Happens here with scans and reproductions of all kind every day and unnecessarily often leads to confusion and deletion requests. Herbert Ortner (talk) 07:52, 23 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Files found with Special:Search/raoul ROCHER incategory:"All media needing categories as of 2021"[edit]

Uploaded by 2 different uploaders. Unlikely to be own work as claimed. PCP

Gbawden (talk) 14:19, 22 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It looks like the cropped version File:Roger raoul ROCHER.jpg was uploaded a day after File:Roger Raoul Rocher.jpg, which implies to me that the second person was sloppy in explaining that one file was extracted from the other. The only places either image pops up in TinEye and Google Lens searches (besides Commons/Wikipedia) is two genealogy sites. It's impossible to say for certain that the Commons uploads predate the genealogy site uploads, but the ones there are of lower resolution making it likely that they were posted to Commons first or at least independently. There's still no real documentation of the photo's source and the identity of the photographer, so COM:PRP may still apply, but the stated rationale (different uploaders) seems to be explainable and correctable, not evidence of a copyright violation. —Tcr25 (talk) 17:42, 22 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Rod Taylor.jpg[edit]

Died in 2018, unlikely to be 2021 own work Gbawden (talk) 14:36, 22 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Photo is of my father and was owned by him and my late mother. There is no copyright violation and the photo was give to Jay Williams with our permission to use for an article in The Telegraph. That said, please carry on with the deletion. Thank you. R Walden 185.67.234.98 16:14, 22 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User:Wayne Chvestuik[edit]

Revised file uploaded to "Bahatkivtsi" page. Wayne Chvestuik (talk) 14:43, 22 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't quite understand. You want to delete your user page, User:Wayne Chvestuik, because a "revised file uploaded" to some page? --Rosenzweig τ 20:27, 22 December 2023 (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:Color Line logo.svg[edit]

Is this logo simple enough to not meet the COM:TOO#Norway rules? Note to self that en:File:Color Line logo.svg will need some updating if this is kept or deleted. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:12, 13 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Kept: I don't think nominating such files for deletion is the best course of action if the nominator does not take any position themselves. If you are unsure, just leave it please. --4nn1l2 (talk) 11:57, 20 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Color Line logo.svg[edit]

The juxtaposition, colorization and varying lengths of the wave patterns are clearly a result of creative choices. Asav | Talk 16:12, 26 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The Norwegian IP-register have a registered trademark here covering the grapical parts, and for the words "Color Line" as wordmark here. If there was no originality in the marks it would not be anything for IP-protection. --Andrez1 (talk) 15:03, 30 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I believe this logo is simple enough to meet both COM:TOO#Norway and TOO in USA. The fact that there is a registered trademark does not mean that the file is copyrightable, and it does not mean that we can not have it on commons. I have added the {{Trademark}} template to this file. Tholme (talk) 18:53, 21 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The fact that this is a registered trademark in Norway does imply that the graphical pattern is complex enough to be copyrighed. Same applies to the words. If generic, simple or not defended, there would be a risk of beeing unable to register or loose registration. The Commons file is a mix of two copyrighted trademarks. It is in that respect not _a_ trademark. Andrez1 (talk) 23:17, 26 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Strawberry Logo.svg[edit]

The positioning of the individual elements (albeit simple geometric forms) is clearly a creative choice and a distinct visual element that undoubtedly meets the threshold of originality. Asav | Talk 15:10, 22 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:OEBB Nightjet Streckennetz Stand 2024.png[edit]

No source provided showing ÖBB published this map under CC-BY-SA 3.0 178.115.59.146 17:02, 22 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Then this should also be removed:
KonMixters (talk) 17:47, 22 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Fletcher breaks up a pass for Laveranues Coles in 2005.jpg[edit]

this link credits the photo to a cupcake shop, but it's like a news photo? Either way, better source information is needed. Adeletron 3030 (talk) 18:45, 22 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Marimo2.jpg[edit]

Save file than File:Marimo colony.svg , but in lower JPG quality Borvan53 (talk) 19:53, 22 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Files uploaded by Conjunto la industria norteña (talk · contribs)[edit]

Possible copyvio: The name of the band is cited as the author,Possible as, Out of scope

CoffeeEngineer (talk) 21:09, 22 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Sheikh Bedreddin Calligraphy.png[edit]

Not really seeing how this image is the uploader's COM:Own work if it's supposed to be an example of the calligraphy of en:Sheikh Bedreddin who died in 1420 AD. This is either the uploader's recreation of such an example or something lifted from some other website. In the first case, the file might be OK as licensed if the original example is within the public domain. In the second case, this would seem to be a violation of COM:NETCOPYVIO if has not been released under an acceptable free license by it's creator. Calligraphy can be eligible for copyright protection depending up whether it's treated as an "art" form, and that could depend upon the copyright laws of country of first publication (if different from the US). So, if this isn't 100% the uploader's "own work" (e.g. COM:2D copying or COM:DW), then I don't think this file can be kept per COM:PCP without knowing more about the provenance of the original work itself. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:32, 22 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What are you saying? I created this image my self. Its not a recreation or an upload of an already existing image some place else or a falsification. We always create such calligraphies to use on ar.wiki in particular: Just Arabic writing arranged in a certain manner!-- باسم (talk) 22:39, 22 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
What does it have to do with Sheikh Bedreddin if this is 100% your COM:Own work? The description you provided for the file on its page states, "Calligraphy of Sheikh Bedreddin Mahmud bin Israel, leader of the revolution against the Ottoman Empire during the time of Sultan Mehmed I.", and Google Translate gives the following: "Arabic: An outline of the name of Sheikh Badr al-Din Mahmoud bin Israel, the famous disobedient against the Ottoman Empire during the time of Sultan Mehmed I." Is this an example you created of Bedreddin's caligraphy style? Is this your rendition in caligraphy of something that Bedreddin said or wrote? Can you translate the text in the image? -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:08, 12 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Coat of arms of Caracas (2022).png[edit]

El escudo de este Municipio debería ser borrado porque según la legislación venezolana (se creó 1963 o antes) pero este escudo se creó en 2022,parece que no está OK, como pasó lo mismo que Commons:Deletion requests/File:Flag of Caracas (2022).svg AbchyZa22 (talk) 22:38, 22 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Keep Las razones que indica no están en absoluto claras, se trata de un emblema público y no aporta ningún enlace a la legislación que demuestre que tiene razón, solo su palabra. Por contra, en las fuentes del propio archivo sí se hace mención, de forma correcta, a las leyes de Venezuela que son de aplicación y que permiten que el archivo siga existiendo en Commons. Echando una mano 22:47, 23 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Echando una mano:  Delete Lamentable el Escudo de Armas públicó en 2022 y según Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Venezuela "En general, 60 años después de la muerte del autor, con la excepción de las obras audiovisuales, difusión de obras y programas de ordenador, en cuyo caso la protección dura 60 años después de la publicación." por eso el Escudo no está "OK".
AbchyZa22 (talk) 22:51, 23 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Porque lo dice usted: no es aplicable a emblemas públicos, según los datos de licencia que se ven claramente en File:Coat of arms of Caracas (2022).png. Además, por favor, explíquese mejor porque cuesta entenderle. Echando una mano 23:01, 23 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Echando una mano:A ver, en cual ley o Constitución en Venezuela indica que las emblemas municipales son de Dominio público?? AbchyZa22 (talk) 00:08, 24 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@AbchyZa22: en el artículo 325 de la Ley Orgánica del Trabajo, los Trabajadores y las Trabajadoras. Además del artículo 2 de la Ley sobre Derechos de Autor, que establece qué creaciones están sometidas a derechos de autor:

los libros, folletos y otros escritos literarios, artísticos y científicos, [...] las obras dramáticas o dramaticomusicales, las obras coreográficas y pantomímicas [...]; las composiciones musicales con o sin palabras·; las obras cinematográficas y demás obras audiovisuales expresadas por cualquier procedimiento; las obras de dibujo, pintura, arquitectura, grabado o litografía, las obras de arte aplicado, que no sean meros modelos y dibujos industriales; las ilustraciones y cartas geográficas: los planos, obras plásticas y croquis relativos a la geografía, a la topografía, a la arquitectura o a las ciencias;[...].

y no se establecen como tales los emblemas públicos, sean nacionales, estatales o municipales. Según su razonamiento no se puede representar ninguna bandera ni escudo cuyo uso sea de menos de 60 años. Echando una mano 00:41, 24 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Echando una mano:En el artículo 325 dice:Invenciones, innovaciones y mejoras en el sector público
La producción intelectual generada bajo relación de trabajo en el sector público, o financiada a través de fondos públicos que origine derechos de propiedad intelectual, se considerará del dominio público, manteniéndose los derechos al reconocimiento público del autor o autora. (Osea no significa que este emblema municipal esté en el dominio público) AbchyZa22 (talk) 14:18, 24 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
El artículo 325 no habla de qué clase de invenciones: la bandera y el escudo lo son. Veo que tampoco comenta lo que dice el artículo 2 de la Ley sobre Derechos de Autor y que especifica claramente qué puede estar sometido a derechos de autor y, repito, no indica en ningún sitio que los emblemas públicos puedan estarlo. Echando una mano 15:42, 24 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Echando una mano:Que osea "La Bandera y Escudo lo son"?? AbchyZa22 (talk) 17:54, 24 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Efectivamente todos los escudos y banderas son invenciones; solo se basan en la imaginación de las personas. Echando una mano 17:59, 24 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Echando una mano:Ok,y Logos de Alcaldias, Concejos Municipales, Gobernaciones, Consejo Legislativos, también estará en el Dominio Público?? AbchyZa22 (talk) 18:59, 24 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@AbchyZa22: como la legislación no especifica que tengan derechos de autor entonces están en el dominio público. Echando una mano 00:56, 25 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:KransbindarvägenRadhusTopDown.png[edit]

Complies to previous requests at first nomination SolensHamn (talk) 23:14, 22 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I moved it to the file, rather than the file talk page.  Delete since it's out of scope now that it's not being used. Abzeronow (talk) 15:56, 23 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I believe this can be closed early due of the lack of discussion. SolensHamn (talk) 20:50, 24 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Reber.ever first radiomap 1944.png[edit]

This file was initially tagged by Fabian RRRR as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: Not the work of NASA, but of Grote Reber (working at Bell Labs), so it's copyrighted. Disputed image uploaded in 2009 and in use, should be discussed. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:57, 22 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/2023/12/22&oldid=846144503"