Commons:Deletion requests/2023/12/25

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

December 25[edit]

File:Peter Mathieson Signature.png[edit]

Per COM:SIG UK A1Cafel (talk) 03:05, 25 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment: As discussed here and here, COM:SIG UK misstates the relevant law and the cited sources, and the user who wrote it no longer stands by it. A1Cafel appears to have nominated a handful of signatures for deletion on this incorrect basis. He has been pinged several times about this issue. In light of the above, it would seem appropriate for him to weigh in as to whether he believes the nominations are still appropriate. --Usernameunique (talk) 23:51, 12 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:FletchWWChan.png[edit]

Appears to be a screenshot or extracted from a bigger file, dubious claim of own work A1Cafel (talk) 03:07, 25 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Oppose any dubious claim, please explain? most headshots extracted from bigger files and it does not a reason to remove any files. Hoising (talk) 17:19, 26 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Peter Mathieson Signature.jpg[edit]

Per COM:SIG UK A1Cafel (talk) 03:08, 25 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


 Oppose, as he made the work in Hong Kong rather than UK, please refer to the source. -- Hoising (talk) 17:21, 26 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@IronGargoyle: Do we have examples of what is considered "extremely simple" in this context? The sentence you quoted is open to significant variations in interpretation. I'd read that myself before my !vote and counted at least 6 separate lines in the signature (more than "a line or two"). If we have precedent of where we draw the line (no pun intended) on the complexity of UK signatures, I'd be happy to stand corrected. From Hill To Shore (talk) 11:59, 2 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment: As discussed here and here, COM:SIG UK misstates the relevant law and the cited sources, and the user who wrote it no longer stands by it. A1Cafel appears to have nominated a handful of signatures for deletion on this incorrect basis. He has been pinged several times about this issue. In light of the above, it would seem appropriate for him to weigh in as to whether he believes the nominations are still appropriate. --Usernameunique (talk) 23:56, 12 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:蘇嘉全signature.svg[edit]

Per COM:SIG Taiwan A1Cafel (talk) 03:14, 25 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


File:Bourse (métro Paris) quai Levallois par Cramos.JPG[edit]

No freedom of panorama in France A1Cafel (talk) 03:28, 25 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  •  Oppose Station de métro ultra standard comme il en existe des centaines identiques, surtout depuis le "renouveau du métro" des années 2000. Pourquoi cette photo serait-elle à supprimer ? Il n'y a aucune oeuvre architecturale spécifique à protéger sur cette photo. Comme l'a déjà dit Poudou99 (talk · contribs), on est là dans ce qu'on appelle le principe de minimis, car dans cette photo il n'y a pas vraiment d'éléments architecturaux notables qui seraient protégés par le droit d'auteur de l'architecte de la station. Il n'y a que des éléments fonctionnels. Ce n'est pas de l'art. Cramos78 (talk) 11:29, 25 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
 Delete per nomination. The advertisement is quite prominent to consider it de minimis. Günther Frager (talk) 16:37, 3 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Fresco of Baba Buddha from a Nirmala Akhara in Punjab.png[edit]

This file was initially tagged by Redtigerxyz as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: The photograph of a fresco. It is copyrighted https://shastarvidiya.org/notice.html#copyright Redtigerxyz (talk) 04:19, 25 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Redtigerxyz - This photograph image of a historical fresco painting is considered a slavish reproduction of a two-dimensional artwork. It's not copyrightable as a result and thus, regardless of what the website claims, it does not have copyright protection. MaplesyrupSushi (talk) 04:21, 25 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Files found with Special:Search/newsroom.consilium.europa.eu[edit]

The copyright page of the European Council seems to imply a no-derivative restriction, which is not accepted on Commons, see also Commons:Deletion requests/Files found with Dussopt incategory:"All media needing categories as of 2023"

A1Cafel (talk) 05:12, 25 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The copyright page states "Reproduction is authorised, provided that the Council of the EU is always acknowledged as the original source of the material, unless otherwise stated and that the original meaning or message of the content is not distorted." I took that to mean I could use images from the Council website since it is a fantastic source of high-quality, up-to-date images of European politicians, and uploaded them, always acknowledging the Council as the original source and linking to the original page. So I apologize if I indeed violated a copyright, but as I understood it, I don't see how the images cannot be used on Wikimedia projects. Procrastineur49 (talk) 11:33, 25 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I concur with User:Procratineur's views that this is a valuable source for images of European politicians, and that in my view the licence allows derivative works (provided "that the original meaning or message of the content is not distorted" - which I interpret as a caveat to respect certain personality rights - which is the case for many, if not most pictures of living people on Commons anyway). So I don't think they need to be deleted from Commons. --Zinneke (talk) 21:12, 28 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
 Keep per @Procrastineur49 and @Zinneke. -- Ooligan (talk) 23:29, 4 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Ridderorde medaille.jpg[edit]

Bad quality photo, article it was used on has been deleted Mbch331 (talk) 08:05, 25 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  •  Comment. I see that the article on nl:Edward Horace van der Sloot has been deleted. I cannot see context on the medal however since the article has been deleted. Is it possible the award is notable even if the awardee is not? IronGargoyle (talk)|

File:Jamal Verblyd.jpg[edit]

Copyvio, scan of unknown book, not own work -- Tomasina (talk) 10:27, 25 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This recipe is located in one cookbook International Cuisine - presented by California Home Economics Teachers in a modified form from my image. The image in Wikimedia is my own, made in one of the Microsoft programs. Spasiboxharapaham (talk) 12:00, 25 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Spasiboxharapaham, is the cookbook still under copyright? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:35, 28 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Ikan Kekek, no, this recipe cannot be copyrighted, since the recipes located in cookbooks are not copyrighted. Also, this image was made by me and is not a scan of any book. I would like to add that the image is for informational purposes only and is one of the proofs that this dish exists. Spasiboxharapaham (talk) 15:17, 29 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's obviously a scan of an acid-darkened page. If it's a scan of a newspaper article, that doesn't change its status. You should be open about what it's a scan of. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:41, 29 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I believe I remember that this recipe was run in the New York Times. Is this a scan of that page? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:49, 30 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Ikan Kekek,I don't think it was published in the New York Times. I think this image is a modified image of the recipe of the cookbook International Cuisine - California Home Economics Teachers( California Management Services), subsequently edited by me. Spasiboxharapaham (talk) 11:06, 30 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
So it's a derivative work of a copyrighted cookbook. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:09, 30 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
A derivative work on a recipe from a cookbook. As far as I know, recipes are not covered by copyright. Therefore, I cannot determine how much this image is my own work, I would be grateful if you would explain to me why this image is nominated for deletion. Spasiboxharapaham (talk) 18:09, 30 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Wait for the closing admin. Maybe the page is below COM:TOO. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:17, 31 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:1940 06 15 Soviet C5 B3 tankai Kaune.IH2704A.png[edit]

Copyright violation? Uploader claims "own work" but I doubt that because the photo was taken in 1940. There was no reaction upon my question on File talk to provide more information. JopkeB (talk) 10:30, 25 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Sheikh Tonmoy Bagerhat-2 Mp.jpg[edit]

politician propaganda.. possibly press photo Ahachri (talk) 10:41, 25 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Keep. Decent photo of a notable political figure; I don't see any reason to doubt the claim of own work. Omphalographer (talk) 18:39, 25 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Kudapatana Village Road.jpg[edit]

Picture does not seem to be useful. Also, the given category (temple) is wrong. No temple is found in picture. Ahachri (talk) 10:45, 25 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Evald Friedrich Keskpaik.jpg[edit]

Old photo(s). Proper author/date/country of creation information should be supplied to determine copyrights status and license tags corrected. Estopedist1 (talk) 12:49, 25 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:All indian cine workers association.png[edit]

flickr washing --Minorax«¦talk¦» 05:29, 13 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Minorax: per Special:Diff/523367652 the Flicker uploader, Flickr user 191616345@N02, was named "aicwaofficial". Leaning  Keep. —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 00:08, 20 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Kept: per en:Suresh Shyamlal Gupta, the current owner of the flickr stream is the founder of the Aicwa, so it can be safely assumed he is allowed to license their logo with CCBYSA. --Ellywa (talk) 21:22, 22 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:All indian cine workers association.png[edit]

flickr washing] --Minorax«¦talk¦» 16:00, 25 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • I don't have an opinion about this deletion request, except that it's problematic to keep requesting deletion for the same reason. I hope the decision this time satisfies you, and we don't have a third deletion request. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:36, 28 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Mario Biondi (R) interviews Gianni Versace.jpg[edit]

Per the template warning, post-1975 Italian images are copyrighted in the United States. QuestFour (talk) 17:33, 25 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

In Italy it is definitely public domain. It has been published (made "public") on the italian weekly magazine "Amica" in December 1990 to illustrate an interview by me to the famous stylist. No photographer cited. And I have scanned and posted it here. So I do not know. Anyway I see that it is used only in Italy and Romania. Is it possible to restrict its use to "only outside USA"? Otherwise, I repeat, I do not know. Act according to the law. Thanks
˜˜˜ Mario Biondi writer (talk) 17:12, 4 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The photo simply being in the magazine does not make it in the public domain. Unless there is corroboration that its author (photographer, or whoever owns its copyright) has made it in the PD, it is only that per the Italian 20-years-after-creation law, which does not apply in the US to photos created after 1975 per the above. QuestFour (talk) 01:05, 11 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Auw bei Prüm, St.Peter und Paul.2.jpg[edit]

No correct permission 2A01:599:807:9D85:9487:F2B2:570A:24F6 17:51, 25 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:Tour_Eiffel_top.jpg[edit]

This image features an architectural or artistic work, photographed from a public space in France. There are no Freedom of Panorama exemptions in France, which means that they cannot be photographed freely for anything other than personal purposes. However, French jurisprudence states that no infringement is constituted when the work is an "accessory compared to the main represented or handled subject". -- Grcampbell (talk) 00:44, 22 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • As per previous deletion request: True that the picture is taken at night, and shows part of the lighting scheme which actually can't be photographed. But this picture is a closeup and displays only less than 5% of the whole lighting scheme... - Benh (talk) 05:02, 22 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

So we just ignore the law as it is a teeny weeny bitty of the subject? The subject of the image is the lighting at the top of the eiffel tower at night. If you only want to show the top of the eiffel tower, you do not need to show an image with the light effects. In this case, the lighting is not "accessory compared to the main represented or handled subject", it IS the subject. --Grcampbell (talk) 05:30, 22 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • We who? You? Of course you can. Somehow you did it for three or four years. Yes, I know, crusades need long preparations ;)). As for the subject, delete. Good catch. No French lightbulbs on commons, period. NVO (talk) 07:29, 22 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I don't ignore anything, I'm looking at it from different way, and no one can prove me wrong on the points I raise. the lighting is not the subject. part of the lighting is part of the subject, which is not the same. I also read somewhere that SETF claim such rights only to prevent abusive uses of the tower's image. I don't believe it is the case here. Don't push it the other way and delete as soon as you have tiny doubts. - Benh (talk) 14:55, 22 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
COM:PRP --Grcampbell (talk) 05:21, 23 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Deleted: Issue isn't how much of the whole tower's lighting is shown, it's how much of the image it constitutes and whether it was incidental or intentional. If you need a picture of the top of the tower, take it during the day. – Adrignola talk 19:13, 27 July 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Restored: No copyright for simple lighting. Yann (talk) 07:42, 12 November 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Tour Eiffel top.jpg[edit]

Per COM:FOP France there is no freedom of panorama for Eiffel tower night pictures. In my opinion the photo was correctly deleted and incorrectly (without discussion) undeleted. This is not a simple lighting. Taivo (talk) 21:08, 25 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Keep per Commons:Deletion requests/Eiffel Tower at night. Apparently only the particular light show in 1989 was copyrighted and normal lighting was not.
Also, since this is currently the POTD of Chinese Wikipedia right now, is there a Speedy Keep #6 applied here? S5A-0043Talk 01:06, 27 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:V. ker címere.jpg[edit]

Lower quality and resolution duplicate file of File:Coa Hungary Town Budapest 5th big.svg. 🏺ⲈⲨⲐⲨⲘⲈⲚⲎⲊ🏛️ ⲱⲑⲏⲥⲁⲧⲉ 21:57, 25 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  •  Keep
    • It’s not a duplicate. It’s an independent rendering of the same blazon (different colors, different drawings of the gates, the tails of the griffins etc.).
    • It’s four years older. External sites may have linked to or embedded the JPEG file between 2008 and 2012 due to lack of better alternative; a deletion would break those sites, without any demonstrated advantage. —Tacsipacsi (talk) 10:38, 29 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/2023/12/25&oldid=847916403"