Commons:Deletion requests/2023/12/24

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
23 December 2023
25 December 2023
Deletion requests on 24 December 2023

December 24[edit]

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

Estopedist1 (talk) 08:35, 24 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Files uploaded by Duchamp3 (talk · contribs)[edit]

problematic user. Very likely copyright infringements. Some files are already individually nominated for deletion

Estopedist1 (talk) 08:50, 24 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:;paranoia kirjutaja isolaator.jpg – selfmade
File:;paranoia kirjastuse raamatuesitlus.jpg – selfmade
File:Metabor.jpg – selfmade
File:Jaak Reevits.jpg – from family archive
File:KIWA by T.Volkmann.tif – from artist information centre webpage
File:Kiwa.jpg – free licence Duchamp3 (talk) 15:16, 24 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comments
File:Jaak Reevits.jpg – from family archive #Comment: Suspicious source. Uploading such files without knowing the photographer may be questionable
File:KIWA by T.Volkmann.tif – from artist information centre webpage #Comment: concrete proof is needed that the file is in public domain or free license.
File:Kiwa.jpg – free licence #Comment: how do you know? If you have permission from Gabriela Liivamägi, then use VRT

Pinging user:Duchamp3 and user:Kruusamägi and user:Taivo--Estopedist1 (talk) 12:00, 25 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Jaak Reevits.jpg – from family archive #Comment: Suspicious source. Uploading such files without knowing the photographer may be questionable.
– I know the photographer, it was my grandfather (he is dead now). Photo was made during Soviet time, that had no Western copyright system.
File:KIWA by T.Volkmann.tif – from artist information centre webpage #Comment: concrete proof is needed that the file is in public domain or free license.
– This webpage's goal is to spread the free info (incl pictures) about the artists. It is not a commercial art webpage.
File:Kiwa.jpg – free licence #Comment: how do you know? If you have permission from Gabriela Liivamägi, then use VRT
– Miss Liivamägi has granted me and to ;paranoia publishing the licence to use this photo for free. Duchamp3 (talk) 06:31, 26 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Duchamp3, Miss Liivamägi needs to agree to all the terms laid out at COM:Licensing and contact COM:VRT to state her agreement to them. Whatever you post here is not going to be sufficient to keep the files. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:09, 28 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
She contacted VRT, but meanwhile her name has changed due to marriage. There is no way t o change the metadata. Duchamp3 (talk) 15:47, 31 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Please help to change the photographers family name from Liivamägi to Urm in the file's summary section. Duchamp3 (talk) 19:52, 3 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Why? You can edit it yourself. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:16, 5 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Mural by Carol Clitheroe at Bayside Shopping Centre, Safety Bay, November 2021 03.jpg[edit]

Similar to UK, no freedom of panorama for "graphic works" in Australia A1Cafel (talk) 03:39, 19 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@A1Cafel: Are we really going through this again? This topic was discussed in Commons:Undeletion requests/Archive/2019-12#File:Wyalkatchem recycling centre mural.jpg in November 2019 and, again, in November 2020 in Commons:Deletion requests/File:Eugowra Mural.JPG, and each time the verdict was Keep. Tell me how these repeated failed attempts to have these images of murals in Australia deleted despite a broad consensus that they are not copyright violations is not disruptive behavior? Calistemon (talk) 04:17, 19 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
We do have cases like this was deleted. --A1Cafel (talk) 04:30, 19 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Not sure what the image depicted but, I would say, because nobody else took any note of the deletion discussion, and you, despite being part of previous discussions that established the above mentioned consensus, went and nominated it for deletion. Calistemon (talk) 04:41, 19 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Kept: Now covered by FOP. --Gbawden (talk) 11:13, 4 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Mural by Carol Clitheroe at Bayside Shopping Centre, Safety Bay, November 2021 03.jpg[edit]

Not really covered. The undeletions a few years before were made without proper discussions at Village Pump or other similar major forums. Much of the contention stems from the claim that street art is covered by Australian FoP because these are "works of artistic craftsmanship", but there has been no community-wide consensus that Australian street art can be freely exploited (see also Commons:Village pump/Copyright/Archive/2023/12#Concern on Australian murals). Moreover, a 2019 information sheet from the Australian Copyright Council concerning street art provides a different answer: street art is not a work of artistic craftsmanship (therefore not covered by Section 65), and that commercial exploitations are subject to permissions from copyright holders. The Burge decision as well as Ms. Pila's scholarly inputs do not provide answers if murals can be freely exploited by commercial users without artists' permissions. See also a concern at Commons talk:Copyright rules by territory/Australia#Please comment: proposal to delete text under FOP heading. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 09:02, 24 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The argument that a painting is not a work of artistic craftsmanship defies logic. Was the 2019 information sheet you cite the last word on that question? On the face of it, User:Aymatth2's comment in the linked discussion is very persuasive, but legal authorities can define a mural as an animal or vegetable if they really want to, I suppose. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:06, 28 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Ikan Kekek don't expect legal authorities in Australia will treat murals as works of artistic craftsmanship that we can freely exploit and license commercially, to the harm of painters who created those works. The Australian Wikimedians who seem to defend the free exploitation of Australian murals seem to be overly focused on the technicality of the term "works of artistic craftsmanship", but even then at least one user expressed concern that Ms. Pila's literature does not really address the basic question of Wikimedians: if the murals and street art are indeed works of artistic craftsmanship and can be freely exploited by postcard makers, photographers (like Wikimedians in general), and others who commercially exploit the works. The court ruling does seem to define the parameters of which of the utilitarian works are works of artistic craftsmanship and which are not. While a user said that there are numerous postcards showing copyrighted murals being sold, it goes against the fifth part of COM:PRP. Also, his claim that a court case may finalize the bounds of Australian FoP is risky; perhaps a mural artist vs. Wikimedia Foundation because we are allowing commercially-licensed images of a certain Australian mural without the artist's licensing permission. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 10:48, 28 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Delete. According to section 65 of the copyright law, sculptures and works of artistic craftsmanship in a public place may be copied in two-dimensional form: painting, drawing, photograph, video etc. An implied point is that a 2D copy of a 3D work cannot be seen as a replacement for the original. A 2D copy of a 2D work could. This source defines work of artistic craftsmanship as: "material that possesses an artistic quality, were created as a result of the creators craftsmanship and are not mass produced item are an artistic work. This may include embroidery, tapestry, needlework and other crafts, as well as handmade ceramics, handmade jewellery and crafted furniture." The list does not include murals and grafitti. The Copyright Council is clear: "Copyright automatically protects most works of street art as artistic works where those works: have resulted from some skill and effort; are not simply copied from something else; and are recorded in material form (e.g. stencils, murals, graffiti, posters, yarn bombing, stick-ups or tags)." This photograph of a mural and all similar Australian steeet art copyright violations should be deleted. Aymatth2 (talk) 12:08, 28 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I think I understand. So they define murals as 2D art, not craftsmanship? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:33, 28 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    This is common to the laws of many countries. A 2 dimensional picture of a building, sculpture or other 3 dimensional work is no substitute for the work itself. But a high quality 2D reproduction of a 2D work may well be seen as a substitute, and may greatly reduce the value of the author's copyright. The mural artist can therefore charge for the right to reproduce their work, just as an artist who paints on canvas, board or paper can. The "artistic craftsmanship" concept is also common. It is something handmade using traditional techniques like weaving, potting or woodworking, and has both functional and artistic value. Copyright may not last as long, and 2D reproduction is generally allowed. Aymatth2 (talk) 23:28, 28 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @Aymatth2@Ikan Kekek even the website of Wikimedia Australia chapter admits that murals can only be used as incidental (de minimis) objects in films that can be shared here (like .webm videos), but those cannot be used as main subjects of videos, moreover, murals should not be present in commercially-licensed images unless there is a prior CC licensing clearances from the painters. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 02:19, 31 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Understood. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:16, 31 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Governador Jorginho Mello - Foto Eduardo Valente - GOVSC-7.jpg[edit]

No permission from the author (Eduardo Valente) A1Cafel (talk) 10:17, 24 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm author and I allow the use Eduardocordinivalente (talk) 19:42, 10 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Eduardocordinivalente can you send a permission from eduardo.valente@sgg.sc.gov.br to permissions-commonswikimedia.org
Thanks! Emha (talk) 23:08, 28 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:David Croix de Guerre Letter.jpg[edit]

This file was initially tagged by Jimfbleak as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: another fake own work, dated 1946

Alphonse Juin died in 1967, this will become PD in France in 2038. If we consider this a 1946 publication, it would be public domain in the US in 2042, but if we consider this unpublished until the upload, then it would become PD in 2038. Converted to DR for discussion and easier undeletion. Abzeronow (talk) 17:12, 24 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Abzeronow, I have a couple questions. If I take a photo of this document and upload it, then won't it fall under my own copyright as the person taking the photo, and so wouldn't it then be possible for me to upload it to the page? Secondly, is there any way of me using this as a reference on the article? If so, could you let me know how please? Thanks a lot Kai110ux (talk) 17:42, 24 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Kai110ux, under countries with Sweat of the Brow like the UK, you would gain an additional copyright, and if this was public domain but unpublished in the EU, you'd get a 25-year publication right. In the United States, where Wikimedia's servers are, you wouldn't get a copyright by scanning because it would be a slavish reproduction of the original under w:Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp., also see COM:PD-Art. And so the question goes to the original copyright: is this a work of Juin's authorship (you can see that he signed it, and it references him as the head of the army) or is this a work of the French government which may be expired because it's been more than 70 years? To your second question, offline documents can be referenced in English Wikipedia. I don't know the details of how to reference this particular document, but it can be referenced. Abzeronow (talk) 18:08, 24 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Konstantin Skorobogatov in Heavenly Slug.jpg[edit]

This file was initially tagged by FlorianH76 as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: Wrong license, non free source

The film appears to be covered by the license since it is a 1945 Soviet Russian film created by a legal entity (Lenfilm). It is a still from that film. Abzeronow (talk) 17:25, 24 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:How heterosexual couples have met, data from 2009 and 2017.png[edit]

The graph and description are from this article, which is published under the old PNAS license. The old PNAS license is incompatible with COM:L, since it does not allow republication and creation of derivative works by anyone, anytime, for any purpose. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 17:41, 24 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I will note that there is an exemption in the license terms that refers to educational use and non-commercial of graphs. For avoidance of confusion (the uploader is a WikiEd student), the licensing policy doesn't accept these sorts of narrow carve-outs. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 17:43, 24 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This should be recreated with a different style using the same data. Yann (talk) 23:24, 25 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
With the possible exception of the text on the bottom, it's a clear {{PD-chart}} pass. Change the license, crop, revdel and keep. Buidhe (talk) 18:54, 7 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Siratus beauii (P. Fischer & Bernardi, 1857) - BioLib.cz.jpg[edit]

The original author of the image appears to have got the copyright wrong (other images by the same author with copyright) Mário NET (talk) 17:43, 24 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Alfa-romeo-logo.png[edit]

This file was initially tagged by Marchjuly as Copyvio (Copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: url=https://www.alfaromeo.com/%7C1=Almost certainly not "own work" and no indication is has been otherwise released as licensed. This logo is quite old. Does a recent rendition create a new copyright? We have many logos on cars, even on close-up views: Category:Alfa Romeo logos. Yann (talk) 19:42, 24 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Files uploaded by Raphael Palermo (talk · contribs)[edit]

unlikely to be own work

Didym (talk) 20:45, 24 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Boa tarde. São fotos para enriquecer artigos, por favor não excluir. São fotos de arquivo. Raphael Palermo (talk) 20:59, 24 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Tais fotos não possuem pessoas vivas, e todas são de acervo guardado por mim de personalidades históricas. Raphael Palermo (talk) 21:04, 24 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
What's missing in your remarks is any claim that you shot these photos. Explain why Commons can host them. Who took the photos and when? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:58, 28 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:Samet Kuş .jpg[edit]

Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photo album. Not used. EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:54, 4 November 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Yann (talk) 10:14, 30 December 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Samet Kuş .jpg[edit]

Tarafımca yanlışlıkla yüklenmiştir. Sametkus (talk) 22:42, 24 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/2023/12/24&oldid=848482385"