Commons:Deletion requests/2023/12/28

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
27 December 2023
29 December 2023
Deletion requests on 28 December 2023

December 28[edit]

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:İD bayrağı ile bir militan.jpg[edit]

Per the consensus formed in this discussion, "We cannot use material from any VOA site dated after June 2013." According to the source, the file is published on April 28, 2015. Mhhossein talk 11:37, 29 September 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]


I'd like to add the following to the list:

Kept: withdrawn. --Jcb (talk) 17:03, 2 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:İD bayrağı ile bir militan.jpg[edit]

Copyright violation. Source video „Messages from the Land of Epic Battles #8“ by al-Furqān Media. https://jihadology.net/2013/09/26/al-furqan-media-presents-a-new-video-message-from-the-islamic-state-of-iraq-and-al-sham-messages-from-the-land-of-epic-battles-6/ Viii23dawari (talk) 10:22, 28 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Anwar Sadat and Willy Brandt.jpg[edit]

Uncredited screenshot of Reuters news footage, not yet public domain in the US: https://www.britishpathe.com/asset/227418/ Belbury (talk) 11:43, 28 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Finder Icon Evolution.jpg[edit]

The most recent Finder logo is fair use on English Wikipedia, therefore this image is a derivative of them. Some of the other Finder images might be fair use as well depending on how complex they are. Xeroctic (talk) 11:53, 28 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Joongdong High School.JPG[edit]

Per COM:FOP SK, there is no freedom of panorama for buildings in South Korea. ✗plicit 13:58, 28 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


 Keep건축가 Min Gyu-am이 서울중앙지법(Seoul Central District Court)에 소송을 제기한 사건은 원고 Min Gyu-am의 승소가 아니고 화해이다. 제(hyolee2/H.L.LEE (talk))가 서울중앙지법(Seoul Central District Court)에 어느 언론사가 제가 촬영한 어느 경찰서의 사진을 사용한 건은 원고(hyolee2/H.L.LEE (talk))에 사진의 저작권이 있다고 인정되어 승소했다.--hyolee2/H.L.LEE (talk) 20:22, 28 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Delete. @Hyolee2: , South Korean law still does not recognize commercial freedom of panorama. The case ended in settlement, but the settlement is favorable to the architect, so we do not treat this thing lightly. We can only accept newer Korean monuments and architecture like this if the fourth condition at the Korean FoP provision is removed, so that copies can now be exploited commercially, that is mandated by commercial Creative Commons licenses. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 16:54, 29 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Keep 이 정도로 단순한 학교 건물에까지 파노라마의 자유에 대한 소송을 제기한 사례는 대한민국에 없고, 없을 것입니다. 한국과 관련된 사진 자료에 대해 과도하게 엄격한 규정을 적용한다면 위키미디어 운동에 참여할 한국인은 남아나지 않을 것이 불보듯 뻔합니다.--Trainholic (talk) 17:28, 21 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Trainholic address your rants to the Korean legislature instead of Wikimedia Commons admins/nominators, on why the Korean law's Article 35(2) is not made to conform to Internet and free culture age. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 05:11, 22 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Files in Category:Atlantis The Royal, Dubai[edit]

In most countries, all paintings, sculpture, architecture, text, and other creative works have copyrights which last for 50 years after the death of the creator. An image of a work that is still under copyright is a derivative work, and infringes on the copyright so that we cannot usually keep the image on Commons. In some countries, there is a special exception to the copyright law which allows such images under certain circumstances. We call that exception freedom of panorama (FOP). Unfortunately there is no applicable FOP exception in United Arab Emirates.

A1Cafel (talk) 14:54, 28 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


File:Plate 11 from "Bar from clear day"..jpg[edit]

Work by Agnes Martin (1912-2004) is subject to copyright 77.63.75.135 16:27, 28 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:British soldier with decapitated head during Malayan Emergency.jpg[edit]

This file was initially tagged by DragonflySixtyseven as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: Photo is very obviously not uploader's own work, as it a) was taken no later than 1960 and b) can plausibly be considered evidence of the photographer's participation in war crimes Yann (talk) 16:43, 28 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

See Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Malaysia. Yann (talk) 16:43, 28 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Malaysia says, copyright for unknown creators lasts fifty years after publication. Uploader cites Asoka Guikon's A People’s History of Malaya: The New Emergency from 1980. Was it published anywhere before that? (Probably, it looks like it was taken from a newspaper. But when was that newspaper published?) DS (talk) 18:16, 28 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


File:Retirement Anouncement for Bobbie R. Allen, Director of the Bureau of Aviation Safety, NTSB.pdf[edit]

Out of scope: counterfeit document? This was obviously not created in 1968; it's a modern document created in Microsoft Word with an older-looking header pasted onto it. Omphalographer (talk) 16:44, 28 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sir.
My name is William Allen, and I am constructing a Wikipedia page to document the career of my father, Bobbie R. Allen who was the Director of the Bureau of Aviation Safety at the National Transportation Safety Board until 1968.
I appreciate the value of oversight to ensure the integrity of Wikipedia data. I can assure you however, that all documents uploaded to Wiki for the Bobbie R. Allen Wikipedia project, which I manage, are in fact, valid and true representations of the original documents which are in the possession of Bobbie R. Allen's family.
I will be happy to provide additional proof of authenticity should you need such.
William D. Allen Wdallen49 (talk) 23:28, 29 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The metadata attached to this file (not to mention the level of detail) indicates unambiguously that it was created and printed in Microsoft Word by someone named Bill Allen on July 30, 2023. Omphalographer (talk) 00:40, 30 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The uploaded image was generated by scanning the original document using a digital scanner. That image was then uploaded into Adobe Acrobat 9 Pro Extended to enable Text Recognition. Once the text was identified it was duplicated into Microsoft Word in order to allow text to be found when searching. Although there is obviously metadata attached, we believe the final image of the document is representative of the original. Wdallen49 (talk) 01:29, 30 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:S-Bahn Stuttgart 1980.svg[edit]

Diese Datei stammt noch von meinen alten Bestrebungen, alle Zustände der S-Bahn Stuttgart zu visualisieren, das verfolge ich derzeit nicht Jonnykwe (talk) 21:55, 10 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 18:05, 23 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:S-Bahn Stuttgart 1980.svg[edit]

Diese Datei beinhaltet Fehler und ich werde bald eine neue Version dieser Datei hochladen, sowie auch von allen anderen Jahren. Siehe auch Liniennetz S-Bahn Stuttgart 2024.svg. Dies ist die neue Version vom jetzingen Zustand. Jonnykwe (talk) 19:20, 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:Liniennetzplan S-Bahn Stuttgart.svg[edit]

Ich habe eine neue Datei mit demselben Inhalt hochgeladen -> siehe S-Bahn Stuttgart.svg Jonnykwe (talk) 21:52, 10 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Kept: in use. --Krd 05:30, 21 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Liniennetzplan S-Bahn Stuttgart.svg[edit]

Habe eine neue Datei mit demselben Inhalt hochgeladen (siehe Liniennetz S-Bahn Stuttgart 2024.svg). Außerdem beinhaltet diese Datei mehrere Fehler und ich habe an allen Stellen, an denen sie benutzt wird, diese durch die neue Datei ersetzt Jonnykwe (talk) 19:25, 28 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Wappen KDStV Norbertina im CV zu Magdeburg.png[edit]

Vermutlich kein eigenes Werk. Die Verbindung dürfte noch jung sein (vermutlich erst nach der Wende gegründet), daher greift noch das Urheberrecht. GerritR (talk) 19:39, 28 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:2023 Ferrero Rocher (1).jpg[edit]

This file was initially tagged by Gower as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: FERRERO ROCHER is a trademark of FERRERO S.P.A..

I wonder if it does't meet de minimis rule. Simple plastic box, chocolates in plain gold papers and text are below COM:TOO. The only copyrighted items are those graphics depicting piles of chocolates but they are very small and the photo does not focus on them. If someone cropps the photo to show them as a main subject such deriviative photo would be of very low resolution. ~Cybularny Speak? 19:48, 28 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Ages of flood basalt events 1.png[edit]

Derivative image of an original cited source image (which has copyright status: © 2003 Académie des sciences/Éditions scientifiques et médicales Elsevier SAS. Tous droits réservés). The image in Wikimedia Commons seems very similar to the source image except for a vertical flip and a horizontall flip, with colouring of the data points and colouring of some text. Are these changes enough to classify this as an original image? Or should it be deleted because the source image does not allow derivatives? GeoWriter (talk) 20:31, 28 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It took me 10 hours of work yesterday to create this new image.
It is not forbidden to use a diagram type that someone else has also used when it comes to visualising temporal coincidences. It can also be represented along a vertical axis with the lettering left and right, but then the diagram becomes very broad because at some points so many magmatic provinces have to be enumerated that were formed at the same time.
I think we have the same problem here as in medicine with anatomical drawings. If you draw them differently, they become wrong. Is that why you can't draw organ systems? Because the same organ systems can already be seen in anatomy books? I haven't used anything from the original, it's not an edited original but a completely new drawing of the same thing in the same form of representation. Sciencia58 (talk) 07:39, 29 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
In geology, there is a convention that you draw the old at the bottom and the young at the top, just as the layers normally are.
I find the diagram in the publication confusing because the course of time starts at the top right and ends at the bottom left with a zero, so you think you must start reading at the bottom left, where diagrams usually begin. It is difficult to understand for an inexperienced reader and the scales on the sides are sloppy, the distances between the lines are different. I have precisely drawn time scales on the sides. I sometimes wonder what kind of inaccurate work people get paid for. I make more precise and visually appealing graphics and get nothing. Sciencia58 (talk) 12:18, 29 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Please compare with the confusing image in the publication Sciencia58 (talk) 09:36, 29 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If I had only doubled the size of the original image and not redrawn every line myself and not rewritten every word myself, the lines and the lettering would look like this: https://puu.sh/JXPCZ/8d4cf03683.png Sciencia58 (talk) 09:36, 31 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comment - An alternative is to just plot the data from Table 1 in the source (which is factual and not copyrightable) in a way that is sufficiently different to the original. The particular cross-plot used by the authors is a little unusual, which might be an issue as that's the original part of the diagram. You could, however, plot the same data above and below a horizontal timeline as time ranges to allow the same comparison. I personally find the cross plot used somewhat confusing as it isn't actually plotting one variable against another, which that sort of plot generally implies. Having said all that, my (possibly uninformed) opinion is that your version is probably sufficiently different, but if there's another simple way to plot the same data, why not do that. Mikenorton (talk) 18:00, 1 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
In the diagram, one variable is plotted against another. Sometimes a geological event does not coincide exactly with a specified time period or the end of a time period, but happened slightly before or after. Then the orange dot is not exactly on the line. The fact that so many points lie exactly on the line enabled Courtillot and Rennes to show that there are temporal coincidences that strongly indicate causal relationships. They could thus also prove that the anoxic events in the oceans with the mass extinctions of the marine fauna were caused by the volcanic events, which are arranged chronologically on the right-hand side of the diagram.
Scotese continued to work on this topic.
https://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/169823/1/Scotese_etal_phan_temp_AAM.pdf
Someone is welcome to create another diagram from the data. I've done my job, if that's not welcome, too bad for Wikipedia, because without a clear chronological overview of the events, nobody who hasn't already studied the subject will be able to make sense of our articles. My diagram is different enough that no one could accuse us of copyright infringement. The only reason to delete it would be that someone might get jealous because I did it so well. Sciencia58 (talk) 08:13, 2 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sciencia58, your contributions are welcome but they must not violate international copyright laws and Wikimedia Commons copyright rules. If an image does not meet the copyright requirements of Wikimedia Commons, the image cannot be included in Wikipedia Commons. If a new image looks too similar to the original image, then the number of hours of effort spent to create the new image is not relevant to its copyright status. The copyright status of the image that you uploaded will be decided by the administrators of Wikimedia Commons, not by me. I am only giving my opinion. In my opinion, the image you uploaded is too similar to the original image and I think it is a derivative of the original image (not merely using the factual data points), which would be a copyright violation because the original image does not allow derivatives. Please see Commons:Derivative works for some information about derivatives. Also, why have you uploaded twelve more recent versions of this image, with only the explanatory comment of "so", after this image was tagged for discussion? GeoWriter (talk) 23:01, 2 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have made several small improvements. I had uploaded the picture too early. The arrows were initially still from the original image. I then drew my own arrows. By the way, arrows are extremely labour-intensive if they have to be fitted into existing images. It took me a whole day to draw the arrows on the File:Cycle of rocks 1.png, because the overall picture has to show harmonious circles. I work in Paint. I can only use whole circles or make curved lines manually.
There is one aspect of copyright: a drawing must have a certain level of creativity in order to be able to claim copyright protection. There are many simple drawings that do not have this level of creativity. A diagram with a square frame has no level of creativity. Neither does a diagonal line from one corner to the other. Even the small circles are abstract symbols without creative level. My small circles also look different. The technical terms for the time periods and the volcanic events are commonly used. They are not subject to copyright. That would be the end of all science. I have now changed the order within the lines when naming the volcanic events. Any other diagram created from this data would look exactly the same. Copyright law does not require that you can only create a single diagram from published data that belongs to the first publisher. There is also the option of writing to the publisher and asking whether diagrams with the same content may be drawn. Of course, that would only be a rhetorical question. Sciencia58 (talk) 07:20, 3 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I am in the process of making an updated diagram of the global paleoclimate, taken from Scotese's PDF page 5, because the diagram we use in the articles on climate change etc. is out of date. Scotese has revised his diagram himself with new data. I will write to him and ask him personally if I can use his new temperature curve. He will laugh and say: of course. But I will ask him to send an OTRS release. If these were all declared copyright infringements, we could stop our work here: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Paleoclimate_over_time
I will contact him anyways, I have been in contact with him before, he is a very nice person. Sciencia58 (talk) 07:24, 3 January 2024 (UTC) I wrote an email to him. It can take some time, until he answers. Sciencia58 (talk) 19:51, 4 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Wow I am so happy, Christopher Scotese has answered already this morning: Climate image. Sciencia58 (talk) 09:34, 5 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

keep does not meet the threshold of originality and is therefore in the public domain. Copyright protects only the presentation, not the content. The presentation here is the simple most possible: a 45 degree line correlating two scales. Nothing protected in that. --h-stt !? 20:17, 8 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/2023/12/28&oldid=850068747"