Commons:Deletion requests/2024/01/29

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
28 January 2024
30 January 2024
Deletion requests on 29 January 2024

January 29[edit]

File:Human Rights or Sharia- - Atheist vs Muslim - Harris Sultan Vs Daniel Haqiqatjou - Podcast.webm[edit]

out of scope? Trade (talk) 00:02, 29 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Why? The topic of the video seems to be totaly in scope. PaterMcFly (talk) 13:36, 29 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"Topics" aren't usually in (nor out) of scope on Commons; individual files are. If you think this video is in scope, you'll need to explain more specifically why that would be the case. While I admittedly haven't watched the entire three-hour video, the impression I get is that this is a fairly run-of-the-mill online debate with no particular educational value; if there's some specific significance to this one, please tell us about it. Omphalographer (talk) 18:36, 29 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There is also the issue that the channel very likely does not own the rights to the webcam footage (¾ of the entire image) Trade (talk) 23:14, 29 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Anti-secession SSC Khatumo female child soldier sorting cartridges in Las Anod, SSC Khatumo, Somalia.png[edit]

unsourced Wowzers122 (talk) 00:17, 29 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:SSC districts Badhan, Las Khorey, Taleh, Bocame, Las Anod, Buhodle, Hudun.png[edit]

It's just the Somali flag above the SSC Khatumo flag whats the purpose of this? Wowzers122 (talk) 00:19, 29 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Ssc khaatumo, khaatumo.jpg[edit]

what would the purpose of this even be? Wowzers122 (talk) 00:28, 29 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:O ecowas.gif[edit]

Seems like a copyright violation and certainly copyfraud in terms of being an original work by the uploader. Cf. e.g. w:en:File:ECOWAS logo.svg, where the logo in the center of this flag is protected by copyright and saved locally on en.wp. Either both are free media (and the logo should be ported here) or they are both not free media (and this should be deleted on Commons and local copies moved to various sister wikis). —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:34, 29 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Files uploaded by AMARANANTHA HAMSA (talk · contribs)[edit]

Possible copyvio: The model is marked as the author, F10, Diploma

CoffeeEngineer (talk) 00:37, 29 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:École Jeannine Manuel.jpg[edit]

Photographe non-crédité, pas d'autorisation du photographe. Confusion entre comanditaire de la photo (aussi contributeur) et ayant-droit. Instrumentalisation de WP pour la promotion. Droit de retrait 03 (talk) 00:57, 29 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Karte Gemeinde Leimbach 1892.png[edit]

This file was initially tagged by Tschubby as Speedy (Löschen) and the most recent rationale was: Begründung: Eine Gemeinde Leimbach hat es nie gegeben. Diese Fläche gehörte der früheren Gemeinde Enge --Tschubby (talk) 21:04, 28 January 2024 (UTC); doesn't qualify for speedy deletion, putting before the community  — billinghurst sDrewth 02:44, 29 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Commons:Categories needing disambiguation[edit]

inactive maintenance page with no ready means for update, nor instruction to users. Redundant at this point.  — billinghurst sDrewth 02:53, 29 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Sunthornphu.jpg[edit]

Questionable claim of authorship. All of the uploader's other uploads have been copyvios or false own-work claims. Photoshopped sky with lots of JPEG artefacts suggests that this was copied several times. Paul_012 (talk) 03:37, 29 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Shalom Ronli-Riklis, 2nd IDF Orchestra Conductor.jpg[edit]

I'm looking at the ticket that the uploader added, and I plainly don't see anything in Ticket:2020051110000191 that would pertain to this photograph. I am working with a machine translation, so it's quite possible I'm missing something, but I harbor significant doubt about this image's freedom. As such, in light of COM:PRP, I'm bringing it here as a deletion request. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 04:36, 29 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Flag of Gyokuto Kumamoto.svg[edit]

Duplicate of File:Flag of Gyokuto, Kumamoto.svg SpinnerLaserzthe2nd (talk) 06:45, 29 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

As author of the SVG I agree, the another "author", person let's say, just copy-pasted mine, and added it to all pages to tryhard the thing.
At least, the vectorized version is used. Let's think collective.
46.193.67.14 17:43, 29 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Propaganda Poster SS-Freiwilligen-Grenadier-Division Langemarck met opschrift Europa is aangetreden! Met het vrijwilligerslegioen vlaanderen in den Strijd tegen het Bolsjewisme.jpg[edit]

This ca. 1940/1944 Dutch poster is not anonymous, it's signed Claudius. Per various web sites, that is a pseudonym of Dutch artist Marius Jacques Gérard Thomassen (1889–1971). So the work is not in the public domain in the Netherlands yet (and also still protected in the US), and the file should be deleted. It can be restored in 2042 (the US copyright will have expired by then as well). Rosenzweig τ 07:21, 29 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]


File:سیدسعیدحسینی.jpg[edit]

This file was initially tagged by Modern Sciences as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: this is not own work
Converted to regular DR to allow for discussion, as no evidence was provided. -- Túrelio (talk) 07:27, 29 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Keep Unless we are shown evidence as to why this is not the uploader's own work, I suggest keeping it? Ali313korosh (talk) 00:33, 30 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Safircover1.jpg[edit]

This file was initially tagged by Modern Sciences as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: this is not own work
Converted to regular DR to allow for discussion, as no evidence was provided. -- Túrelio (talk) 07:28, 29 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Keep Unless proven to be a copyright violation, I suggest keeping. Ali313korosh (talk) 00:35, 30 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Isar.jpg[edit]

This file was initially tagged by Modern Sciences as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: this is not own work
Converted to regular DR to allow for discussion, as no evidence was provided. -- Túrelio (talk) 07:28, 29 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Keep No rationale given as to why authorship is contested. PaterMcFly (talk) 14:51, 29 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Safircover.jpg[edit]

This file was initially tagged by Modern Sciences as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: this is not own work
Converted to regular DR to allow for discussion, as no evidence was provided. -- Túrelio (talk) 07:29, 29 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Keep Unless proven to a copyright infringement, I suggest keeping. Ali313korosh (talk) 00:39, 30 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Files in Category:Interior of the Reichstag dome[edit]

No freedom of panorama for interior views in Germany.

Lukas Beck (talk) 08:21, 29 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  •  Keep wir hatten eine Fotogenehmigung für alle Bereiche des Rechtags durch die Bundestagsverwaltung. --Ralf Roletschek 08:26, 29 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Die Bundestagsverwaltung hat sicherlich das Hausrecht. Gilt das auch für das hier relevante Urheberecht? Lukas Beck (talk) 08:32, 29 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
     Comment (in English) unless proven, we should not assume that the German government holds the copyright of the work of architecture. Assume that architect Norman Foster still holds the economic rights, not the government as Ralf Roletschek wants to claim. We have nominated dozens of good quality images of the dome for deletion because German FoP does not extend to views of landmarks or structures from indoors (therefore, architects or artists can enforce copyright to interior views and can restrict any commercial Creative Commons licenses that Wikimedians/Flickr users apply to their images). See also Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Exterior of the Reichstag dome, for external views of the dome that are not taken from the street level. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 09:43, 29 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    There is a Template FoP-USonly, which says :
    Although this image is free under US copyright law and thus acceptable on the English Wikipedia, it is believed to be non-free in its home country. This image should not be transferred to Wikimedia Commons unless it can be proven that depictions of the architectural work are free in the country where the work is located, as Commons requires that images be free in the source country and in the United States.
    If somebody knows how to use it, one could perhaps keep some of the best photos, which of course will not appear in Wikimedia Commons?! Olga Ernst (talk) 12:26, 29 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • I always wonder on things like this: if we are confident that Norman Foster holds the relevant copyright, has anyone considered trying to get hold of him and get the relevant permission? I would think he'd be fine with these images being out there. - Jmabel ! talk 19:35, 29 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      I second this idea Victorgrigas (talk) 20:48, 29 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      Probably most of the artists would be happy and proud having their works shown and shared all over the world Olga Ernst (talk) 21:40, 29 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      To obtain his permission, you'll have to: a) find direct contact to Foster; b) convince him to release the work; c) convince him to take necessary bureaucratic steps especially the permission e-mail to COM:VRT. I guess for most of us a) is the hardest part, but I can imagine that c) can also be quite difficult. --A.Savin 11:48, 30 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • I'd guess that unless someone has a back channel, the easiest way to apprise the firm of the issue (I don't really know whether the copyrights are in his personal name or that of the firm, but they would know) is to go to https://www.fosterandpartners.com/contact and use the "Press" channel to make initial contact. But, really, we ought to do this sort of thing broadly: there ought to be a cooridintated campaign reaching out via various architects' organizations to try to get large numbers of architects and firms to make such releases. I suspect many, if not most, architects would wish to do so. - Jmabel ! talk 20:20, 30 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
        Ping @Rkieferbaum. Darwin Ahoy! 14:42, 2 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
        I think the first question is whether Foster + Partners still holds the economic rights. Many countries make it obligatory that these be transferred to the state in public contracts. I'll try to check this when I can. In any case, there's no harm in reaching out to Foster and any other architecture firms to ask for permission (which, with Foster and many other firms, would be useful since they have projects all around the world). This could even be a generalized campaign, with banners, social media and such. I'll gladly help if you all think that makes sense. Rkieferbaum (talk) 16:38, 2 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
        @Jmabel: or turn several of architects into FoP allies. I'll elaborate this in the ongoing discussion at Commons talk:Freedom of panorama, which involved a heated debate between me and two other users concerning possible forced application of U.S. FoP here and abandonment of local FoP laws (this may be favorable for Reichstag dome actually but may raise German authorities' eyebrows towards Wikimedia Commons for trying to use more lenient U.S. law instead of German law for free uses of architecture). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 01:52, 8 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

COMːNOTWEBHOST and probably out of scope. Used in a promotional draft about himself that will not be accepted. dodgy own work claims for a number of these as well

Gbawden (talk) 08:27, 29 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Derkovits Gyula - 1923 - Erzsi húgom a ravatalon.png[edit]

It is not under free license, according to the source it is under noncommercial CC BY-NC-SA: https://hu.museum-digital.org/singleimage?imagenr=375393 Pallerti (talk) 09:21, 29 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Keep Derkovits has been dead since 1934 (nearly 90 years), so his works are in the public domain under Hungarian law, as are any photographs depicting his two-dimensional works. The museum has no legal right to give any license (free or non-free) because the museum does not own the copyright.

--Malatinszky (talk) 21:59, 29 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Kedves Malatinszky! Én mint a kép föltöltője csatlakoznék álláspontodhoz. Indokolás: A Wikimédia Alapítvány hivatalos álláspontja szerint „kétdimenziós közkincs művek hű reprodukciói közkincsnek számítanak”.
Ez a fénykép ezért szintén közkincsnek számít. Tegzes (talk) 15:14, 31 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Kiki-Musee-du-Jouet-Moirans39-byRundvald-cropped.jpg[edit]

COM:TOYS, 1980s product design Belbury (talk) 09:43, 29 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Bonjour ! Ce jouet, cette poupée-peluche appelée Moncchichi dans beaucvoup de pays, et appelée Kiki en France, est un jouet d'origine japonaise. Au Japon, il n'y a absolument aucun droit d'auteur sur les jouets. De plus, l'exemplaire figurant sur cette photo a été fabriqué en France pour le marché français, et est exposé dans un musée français en France ! Vous faites référence à article (com:TOYS) qui ne parle que du droit d'auteur sur les jouets aux États-Unis. La France, l'Europe et le Japon ne sont pas les États-Unis contrairement à ce croient beaucoup d'américains. Le droit américain ne s'applique qu'aux États-Unis. Si vous avez peur que cette photo soit affichée dans un article anglophone, il suffit pour empêcher cela de mettre un blocage pour la partie anglophone de Wikipedia, comme c'est le cas à l'inverse, quand des images autorisées dans les pays anglophones ne le sont pas en France. De toute façon, le dessin original de ce jouet, Moncchichi ou Kiki, est japonais, le japon où le droit d'auteur sur les jouets n'existe pas. Enfin, cette image a déjà fait l'objet d'une demande de suppression, et cette demande a déjà été rejetée pour les raisons que vous explique ci-dessus. Voilà, j'espère que ça suffira à perpétuer la présence de cette sympathique photo sur Wikimedia et Wikipedia, au moins pour les versions francophone. Cordialement, Rundvald
Hello ! This toy, this plush doll called Moncchichi in many countries, and called Kiki in France, is a toy of Japanese origin. In Japan, there is absolutely no copyright on toys. In addition, the example in this photo was manufactured in France for the French market, and is exhibited in a French museum in France! You are referring to article (com:TOYS) which only talks about copyright on toys in the United States. France, Europe and Japan are not the United States, contrary to what many Americans believe. American law applies only to the United States. If you are afraid that this photo will be displayed in an English-speaking article, all you need to do to prevent this is to block the English-speaking part of Wikipedia, as is the case conversely, when images authorized in English-speaking countries are not in France. In any case, the original design of this toy, Moncchichi or Kiki, is Japanese, Japan where copyright on toys does not exist. Finally, this image has already been the subject of a request for deletion, and this request has already been rejected for the reasons explained above. There you go, I hope that this will be enough to perpetuate the presence of this nice photo on Wikimedia and Wikipedia, at least for the French-speaking versions. Kind regards, Rundvald Rundvald (talk) 10:21, 29 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.

Files in Category:Exterior of the Reichstag dome[edit]

As per Commons:Village pump/Copyright/Archive/2022/01#Reichstag Dome and German FOP. The rooftop area is not considered a place freely-accessible to the public as it can only be accessed through prior registration, not a free entrance without entry control. Thus these images of the dome from the rooftop or interiors cannot benefit from German freedom of panorama, which is strict on location of the photographer, not the physical location of the artwork. Thus these images need commercial license permission from the artwork author, Architect Lord Norman Foster.

Images taken from the ground outside the Reichstag or from the air are fine.

Prior deletion requests from 2013
  1. Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Dome of the Reichstag (building)
  2. Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Reichstag (dome) - Exterior
Keep The dome is not part of this image (retouch). sугсго
@Syrcro: see COM:Derivative works. If the original image where this file is derived proved to be a violation of architect's copyright, then this "censored image" has become a derivative work of the infringing image. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 09:56, 19 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Syrcro is correct (an image without copyrighted stuff is not a copyvio) --Isderion (talk) 20:32, 20 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Isderion: but see COM:DW. Also, it is useless to use it in another Wikimedia-wide campaign, if the dome in relation to the photographer themself did not pass German FOP standards (unless someone from Germany will use this in their lobby to widen German FOP scope to include public indoors regardless of entry requirements). But I doubt that: German legislature, courts, and academia won't expand German FOP anymore since it will be an abuse to artists' rights to earn extra for their living. So I see little use for this censored image, maybe falling out of COM:SCOPE too. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 13:39, 22 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@JWilz12345: you realize the image is in use in >10 Wikipedias. Claiming out of scope seems a bit far fetched. --Isderion (talk) 20:37, 22 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Isderion: and yet it misrepresented German FOP in showing the effect of the proposed Cavada proposal for Germany. Misrepresentation because the source image did not comply German FOP in the first place. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 22:24, 22 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 06:21, 16 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Es gibt freien Zugang, nur eben mit den für solch gefährdeten Bereich notwendigen Sicherheitsmaßnahmen. Ich kann nicht erkennen, warum gewöhnliche Sicherheitsregeln einen öffentlichen Raum plötzlich nicht mehr öffentlich machen sollten. Außerdem sollte eine Genehmigung des Hausherren, sprich der Bundestagsverwaltung, vollkommen hin reichend sein.
BTW: In diesem DR sollte ausschließlich Deutsch gesprochen werden, es geht schließlich ausschließlich um den deutschen Rechtsraum und die hier geltenden FoP-Regeln, wer nur Englisch kann, hat sich hier rauszuhalten, das ist ein Zeichen von Unkenntnis. Grüße vom Sänger ♫ (talk) 13:21, 16 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If you can't speak German, you're wrong here, as this is solely about German law an it's wording, without knowledge of German, you can't participate here in a valid manner. Grüße vom Sänger ♫ (talk) 13:23, 16 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"without knowledge of German, you can't participate here in a valid manner" Simply isn't true. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:51, 16 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Google Translate reply of Sänger's input There is free access, just with the security measures necessary for such a vulnerable area. I can't see why ordinary safety rules should suddenly make a public space unpublic. In addition, an approval from the host, i.e. the Bundestag administration, should be completely sufficient. BTW: Only German should be spoken in this DR, after all it is only about the German legal area and the FoP rules that apply here, whoever only speaks English has it staying out of here is a sign of ignorance. _ translation added by JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 14:17, 16 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Warum übersetzen? Wer das nicht lesen kann, kann hier sowieso nicht mitreden. Monolinguistische Anglophone sollten sich hier sehr zurückhalten, die haben hiervon keine Ahnung. Grüße vom Sänger ♫ (talk) 14:18, 16 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"Only German should be spoken in this DR" There is absolutely no such requirement here; and no policy basis for such a statement. "anyone who only knows English has to stay out of this, that is a sign of ignorance" (better translation, per [1])) Such statement is likely sanctionable; is not welcome and is certainly unwarranted. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:48, 16 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This is solely about some inner-German laws, written only in German, without profound knowledge of German language and laws nobody can say anything meaningful here. So very good knowledge of German is a conditio sine qua non for this discussion. At least one of the photographers here doesn't speak English, and his involvement is a must as well, so it must not be done in English, a language those who are concerned do not necessary speak.
Da es hier ausschließlich um bundesdeutsche Gesetze geht, die auf Deutsch geschrieben sind, kann jemand ohne sehr gute Kenntnisse sowohl der deutschen Gesetze als auch der Sprache nicht sinnvoll an dieser Diskussion teilnehmen. Sehr gute Deutschkenntnisse sind eine conditio sine qua non für diese Diskussion. Mindestens einer der betroffenen Fotografen spricht kaum Englisch, und seine Einbindung in diese Diskussion ist verpflichtend, also darf hier nicht auf Englisch diskutiert werden, einer Sprache, die von denen, die es fast ausschließlich betrifft, nicht unbedingt auch gesprochen wird. Grüße vom Sänger ♫ (talk) 19:02, 16 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Again: There is absolutely no such requirement here; and no policy basis for such a statement. Feel free to cite such a policy, if you believe otherwise. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:51, 16 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Not policy, people without knowledge can just say nothing about it, it's like me writing an article for the Spanish Wikipedia: I just can't, because I don't speak the language. There ain't no policy for that, it's just a no-brainer. Grüße vom Sänger ♫ (talk) 23:11, 16 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
English is the de facto lingua franca for Commons and allows most people to participate. If one doesn't understand English, Google Translate / Deepl are an option. No discussion on Commons is limited in scope to a single country or language area, because it's ultimately about whether we can host certain files for worldwide use, even though this might depend upon national law. Gestumblindi (talk) 11:13, 22 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Delete We cannot be sure. On COM:FOP Germany#Public there is written: "[...] administrative buildings are not "public" within the meaning of the statute". This most likely applies to Bundestag too. The fact that it's possible to anyone to visit the Reichstag roof is more like a privilege rather than a right. Its presence doesn't automatically make the Reichstag roof a public place in the sense of German FoP. We have to assume that as long as there is no court decision that says otherwise. --A.Savin 16:50, 16 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Einer der Hauptbetroffenen hier ist bekennender Nichtanglphoner. Da das hier allein um deutsches Recht in Deutschland geht, muss hier primär in der korrekten Sprache der Betroffenen diskutiert werden. Gerne kann auch mal was in die komische Fremdsprache übersetzt werden, das ist aber nebensächlich und Aussagen nur in einer Fremdsprache sind irrelevant für den Fall. Hier ist Englisch eine vollkommen unangemessene Sprache für den Sachverhalt. Grüße vom Sänger ♫ (talk) 17:16, 16 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The paragraph also says:"needs to be such that one can infer a (sufficient) dedication to the public". The dedication to the public /German people is literally written on the building
Please also keep in mind that the need to book an appointment was not always there, there was a time, when you could simply queue and get in.
Hence, I would rather keep than delete, but it's a close call. --Isderion (talk) 19:49, 16 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Von meinen Fotos werden einige seit damals von der Bundestagsverwaltung benutzt, ich habe damals das Thema Panoramafreiheit Tage vorher angesprochen. Aber eine Freigabe vom Bundestag ist auf Commons nicht ausreichend, das muß scheinbar persönlich vom Papst unterschrieben sein. Ralf Roletschek 11:07, 17 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Nicht von der Schrankenbestimmung erfasst sind nach einhelliger Auffassung des Schrifttums Aufnahmen und Darstellungen von Werken in Innenräumen auch von öffentlichen Gebäuden wie Museen, öffentlichen Sammlungen, Kirchen oder Behörden. Dies entspricht der ausdrücklichen Erwägung in der amtlichen Begründung, wonach die „in öffentlichen Museen dauernd ausgestellten Kunstwerke“ nicht privilegiert werden sollten, weil diese „nicht in dem gleichen Maße der Allgemeinheit gewidmet [werden] wie die Werke, die an öffentlichen Plätzen aufgestellt sind.“ Das Oberlandesgericht Köln verneinte vor diesem Hintergrund die Anwendbarkeit der Panoramafreiheit auf die Darstellung eines Kunstwerks im Plenarsaal des Deutschen Bundestags in Bonn.
According to the unanimous opinion of legal literature, photographs and representations of works indoors, including those of public buildings such as museums, public collections, churches or authorities, are not covered by the limitations. This is in line with the express consideration in the official explanatory memorandum, according to which “works of art permanently exhibited in public museums” should not be privileged because they “are not dedicated to the general public to the same extent as works exhibited in public places are set up.” For this reason, the Cologne Regional High Court denied the applicability of the freedom of panorama to the presentation of a work of art in the plenary hall of the German Bundestag in Bonn.

Also, another excerpt from the same part, concerning shots of public artworks taken from mid-air or parts of a building such as a balcony.

Der Bundesgerichtshof verneinte entsprechend für die Aufnahme eines urheberrechtlich geschützten Gebäudes vom Balkon eines gegenüberliegenden Hauses (zu dem jeder auf Wunsch einen Schlüssel erhielt) die Anwendbarkeit von § 59 UrhG schon deshalb, weil diese „Teile des Gebäudes zeigt, die von dem Weg, der Straße oder dem Platz aus nicht zu sehen sind“. Ob vor diesem Hintergrund eine Kamerainstallation auf dem Dach eines Fahrzeugs, die das Straßenbild aus 2,90 Metern Höhe aufnimmt (Google-Street-View-Fahrzeuge), noch den Blick von der öffentlichen Straße bzw. dem öffentlichen Platz aus wiedergibt und insoweit das Privileg aus § 59 UrhG entstehen lässt, wird in der Literatur kontrovers diskutiert, zumeist aber verneint. Dieser Auffassung schloss sich 2020 das Landgericht Frankfurt nicht mehr an. Es stellte fest, dass es im Licht der europäischen Richtlinie 2001/29/EG (Urheberrechtsrichtlinie) und der weiten Verbreitung von Drohnen auf die Frage des Hilfsmittels und der Ansicht nicht mehr ankommen könne, und unterstellte jedes Bauwerk aus jeder Perspektive und mittels jedes Hilfsmittels der Panoramafreiheit.
Accordingly, the Federal Court of Justice denied the applicability of § 59 UrhG for the shot of a building protected by copyright from the balcony of a house opposite (to which everyone was given a key on request) simply because this “shows parts of the building that are different from the path, the street or cannot be seen from the square". Concerning this, whether a camera installation on the roof of a vehicle, which records the street scene from a height of 2.90 meters (Google Street View vehicles), still reproduces the view from the public street or public square and insofar as the privilege arises from § 59 UrhG, this is controversially discussed in the legal literature, but mostly rejected. The Frankfurt Regional Court no longer agreed with this view in 2020. It stated that in the light of the European Directive 2001/29/EC (Copyright Directive) and the widespread use of drones, the question of the tool and the view could no longer be relevant, and subordinated every building from every perspective and by means of every tool to the freedom of panorama.

With regards to this, it can be interpreted that only mid-air and aerial shots (like drone shots) were given consideration in recent German court rulings regarding panoramafreiheit, but views from certain parts of a building are still rejected by the courts. Views that would drastically change the normal appearance of a public artwork (like the Reichstag dome) as it is supposed to be seen from "public paths, streets, squares, high seas, coastal waters, sea waterways, and seaports" ("öffentlichen Wegen, Straßen, Plätzen, Hohe See, das Küstenmeer, Seewasserstraßen sowie Seehäfen"). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 12:28, 17 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Es gab aber eine explizite Erlaubnis des Hausherren im Rahmen des de:Wikipedia:Bundestagsprojekt etliche dieser Bilder zu machen, also mindestens diese sind imho unstrittig zu behalten. Grüße vom Sänger ♫ (talk) 12:49, 17 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It needs a permission by the copyright holder of the dome, and that's Norman Foster, not the Hausherr. --A.Savin 13:13, 17 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

keep ... public building. It was built for the public by the government, not by private individuals. It has certainly been photographed millions of times. Triplec85 (talk) 13:57, 17 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Triplec85: This discussion is about the dome, not the building as a whole. --A.Savin 14:15, 17 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Triplec85: photography is alwaus free and no one disputes that. But publication without the need of commercial license from the architect is a different thing. And take note German FOP is too selective in the location of the photographer. In this case, the rooftop area is no longer a public space and the architect can claim damages to free uses of peoples' images of his work which is the dome. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 14:16, 17 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Keep Die Frage der Panoramafreiheit stellt sich meines Erachtens gar nicht, da es sich bei der Kuppel (ganz im Gegensatz zum Adler im Plenarsaal) gar nicht um ein schützbares Werk des Herrn Foster handelt: »Am 8. Mai 1995 wurde Fosters endgültiger Entwurf für eine gläserne, begehbare Kuppel vorgestellt, dem die Abgeordneten zustimmten. Der Architekt Calatrava erhob daraufhin den Vorwurf, dies sei ein Plagiat seines eigenen Wettbewerbsbeitrags, der eine transparente Kuppel ähnlicher Form vorsah. Nach Gutachten und Gegengutachten setzte sich die Ansicht der meisten Fachleute durch, wonach für ein traditionelles architektonisches Gestaltungselement wie eine Kuppel kein besonderer Rechtsschutz beansprucht werden könne. Außerdem hatte schon anlässlich der Ausrichtung des Wettbewerbs 1992 Gottfried Böhm seinen Entwurf für eine Kuppel veröffentlicht, die er 1988 im Auftrag von Bundeskanzler Helmut Kohl entworfen hatte. Dieser Entwurf zeigt bereits eine Glaskonstruktion mit spiralförmig aufsteigenden Gehwegen für Besucher und ist offensichtlich die Grundlage für die schließlich von Norman Foster widerwillig realisierte Kuppel.« --Stepro (talk) 14:54, 17 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Google Translate of Stepro's input: In my opinion, the question of freedom of panorama does not arise at all, since the dome (in contrast to the eagle in the plenary hall) is not a protectable work by Mr. Foster. On May 8, 1995, Foster's final design for a glass walk-in dome was presented and approved by MPs. Architect Calatrava then claimed that this was a plagiarism of his own competition entry, which envisaged a transparent dome of a similar shape. After expert opinions and counter-expert opinions, the opinion of most experts prevailed, according to which no special legal protection could be claimed for a traditional architectural design element such as a dome. In addition, when the competition was held in 1992, Gottfried Böhm published his design for a dome, which he had designed in 1988 on behalf of Chancellor Helmut Kohl. This design already shows a glass construction with spiraling walkways for visitors and is apparently the basis for the dome that Norman Foster reluctantly finally realized. _ JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 15:08, 17 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
 Weak keep Though my native language is (Swiss) German, I prefer using English as our lingua franca here. If the Reichstag dome could be considered a work of architecture which is protected by copyright, then I would vote delete, as these photos aren't taken from public space in the sense of German FoP law, but from an access-restricted area where you can visit for free, but not freely. But per Stepro's argument, legal experts are of the opinion that this glass dome is a generic element of architecture that enjoys no copyright protection whatsoever to begin with. It would never have occurred to me that could be the case, as it's quite iconic IMHO, but if this is really the case, then we can keep the images. Gestumblindi (talk) 11:08, 18 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Gestumblindi: this may be a welcoming discovery: I may withdraw this DR if the claim is in harmonization with COM:TOO Germany. Plus maybe all deleted files can be restored (but one was overwritten and may need to undergo some administrative action). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 11:22, 18 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The said file is File:Reichstag Berlin.jpg, which I am trying to request to be renamed as File:Reichstag Berlin 2020.jpg. A different file existed until its deletion via Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Dome of the Reichstag (building)#Files in Category:Dome of the Reichstag (building) 2. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 11:31, 18 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Delete for the following reasons:
  1. The dome is a protected work of architecture. We apparently have sources claiming the opposite, but they probably only talk about whether or not the idea of a glass dome on top of the Reichstag building can be copyrighted, not about the specific design by Norman Foster.
  2. Freedom of panorama does not apply to the observation deck, as it is not a "public path, street, or square" in the sense of sec. 59 German Copyright Act.
  3. We do not have the permission from the rightsholder, as we have no evidence that Norman Foster transferred the entire usage rights of his design to the German government.
Therefore, sadly, we have to delete any and all photos depicting the dome taken from the observation platform.
Löschen aus den folgenden Gründen:
  1. Die Kuppel ist ein urheberrechtlich geschütztes Werk der Architektur. Es gibt offenbar Quellen, die das Gegenteil besagen, aber diese beziehen sich wohl nur auf die Schutzfähigkeit der Idee einer gläsernen Kuppel auf dem Reichstagsgebäude, nicht auf den konkreten Entwurf von Norman Foster.
  2. Die Panoramafreiheit ist auf die Aussichtsplattform nicht anwendbar, weil sie kein "öffentlicher Weg, Straße oder Platz" im Sinne von § 59 UrhG ist.
  3. Wir haben keine Freigabe des Rechteinhabers, weil wir keine Nachweise dafür haben, dass Norman Foster seine gesamten Nutzungsrechte auf die Bundesregierung übertragen hat.
Deshalb müssen wir leider alle Fotos der Kuppel löschen, die von der Aussichtsplattform aus aufgenommen wurden.
--Gnom (talk) 22:09, 18 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ich bin ja kein Jurist, aber nach meinem Verständnis gibt es auch so etwas wie die Intention von Gesetzen. Und hier sehe ich eine reine Überinterpretation pro vermeintlichem Urheberschutz gegen die Rechte der Allgemeinheit. Das dürfte so nie die Intention der Gesetzgeber gewesen sein. Ich sehe auch Gnoms Argumentation demantsprechend als nicht zielführend. Gehalten im Sinne meines Verständnis eines tieferen Sinnes hinter der reinen Gesetzgebung. -- Marcus Cyron (talk) 16:12, 19 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
In English (via Google Trans): I'm not a lawyer, but according to my understanding there is also something like the intention of laws. And here I see a pure over-interpretation per supposed copyright protection against the rights of the general public. That should never have been the intention of the legislature. I also see Gnom's argumentation accordingly as not expedient. Keep in terms of my understanding of a deeper meaning behind pure legislation.
@Marcus Cyron: though the history of court rulings tend to be restrictive, only allowing commercial uses of German public artworks like architecture if the photos to be used are taken by photographers in public paths, roads, squares, waterways and open seas, port areas, and in the recent case from Frankfurt, from air/drone. None of the courts consider public premises (e.g. balconies) as allowed under German FOP. This may mean, the rooftop area, despite outdoors, is not covered by German FOP. Courts interpret the ambiguous laws and their rulings serve as models for future German FOP cases, whether real life or the likes of Commons deletion requests. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 16:28, 19 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm convinced by Gnom's statement. For transparency, I asked him in German Wikipedia whether he could contribute something to this discussion (as you can see if you have a look at his user page, it's not quite random that I ask him of all people ;-) ). So I'm striking my "weak keep" vote above and now vote  Delete as well. In my opinion, it seems to be clear enough that FoP doesn't apply in this case, and I would have voted for deletion from the start, except for Stepro's argument which seemed plausible at first. By the way, the German Wikipedia article quoted by Stepro lacks citations in this paragraph, so it's a bit hard to check what exactly the experts said in the Calatrava/Foster dispute. Gestumblindi (talk) 20:29, 19 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Comment It looks like german government has the usage right, as they published this poster in the Reichstag U-Bahn station: Kuppel in der U-Bahn --C.Suthorn (talk) 09:41, 24 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This only shows that they have a usage right, meaning the right to use this photo for this billboard. They would need the entire usage rights in the dome design for us to keep the photos with their permission (instead of requiring the architect's permission). We do not have any evidence of the latter, unfortunately. Gnom (talk) 09:49, 24 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Second in motion to Gnom's input. Usage right does not equate to economic rights obtained from Architect Lord Norman Foster. No indication that the architect has surrendered his patrimonial rights to earn and control peoples' photos and videos of his artwork to the Federal Republic of Germany or at least, the Parliament of Germany JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 11:26, 24 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • keep: Limited access does not preclude the interpretation of a site as public. The usual example in German law books are cemeteries, that are closed at night. Despite the closure, they are considered public with regard to FOP. The roof was wide open to the public without booking before 9/11, you just had to show a photo ID and walk through an X-ray-scanner, so all pictures before that date should be fine. Since 9/11 the rules for admission changed a few times. But they were imposed for security reasons only, not for a general limitation of access. Thus I consider the site as public and the image covered by FOP. --h-stt !? 19:32, 2 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    "you just had to show a photo ID and walk through an X-ray-scanner" - so, if you were not willing or able to show a photo ID, you didn't get access, right? That's not at all what I would call a publicly accessible place. In a "public path, street, or square", I don't need to show a photo ID, and certainly don't need to walk through an X-ray scanner... Gestumblindi (talk) 20:28, 2 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Deleted: per nomination, A.Savin, Gnom and Gestumblindi, except File:14-09-09-Bundestag-RalfR-082 with result of EU legislation.jpg which has the dome already blocked out. I'm not convinced by h-stt's cemetery analogy for the reasons mentioned by Gestumblindi (the Reichstag roof top is not just closed at night, but there's also only controlled access during the day). The files can be restored when the architect Norman Foster's copyright has expired 70 years after his death, whenever that may be (he just turned 87 today). --Rosenzweig τ 12:35, 1 June 2022 (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.

Files in Category:Exterior of the Reichstag dome[edit]

Per this discussion

Lukas Beck (talk) 17:02, 16 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Rosenzweig τ 06:52, 23 August 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.

Files in Category:Exterior of the Reichstag dome[edit]

Per the argument that Freedom of panorama does not apply to the observation deck, as it is not a "public path, street, or square" in the sense of sec. 59 German Copyright Act as mentioned above by Gnom.

Paradise Chronicle (talk) 22:08, 20 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Materialscientist (talk) 01:19, 27 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Files in Category:Exterior of the Reichstag dome[edit]

More views of the copyrighted architecture that are not from street, square, or thoroughfares. Courts have ruled that German FoP does not cover non-street views of public art and buildings, and that architects/artists have the right to prohibit commercial Creative Commons licensing of their works if their works are photographed outside the allowed locations of the photographers. See also prior nominations at Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Exterior of the Reichstag dome.

JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 09:47, 29 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:עמק זבולון - בי"ח קומנר - יציקת כלי אינסטלציה-JNF022961.jpeg[edit]

Copyright violation? How can this photograph (and the rest in Category:Photographs by Tim Gidal) be in the public domain when the photographer died in 1996? JopkeB (talk) 10:49, 29 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Oxiran.svg[edit]

Too wide margin, replaced by File:Ethylene oxide.svg. Leyo 10:50, 29 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The wide margin was chosen to make it consistent with the German version of the article about heterocycles. I think it's no problem to replace it, but it should keep the overall style of all heterocycles in this article. best regards. Johannes Schneider (talk) 17:51, 30 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Сватанне (1918).pdf[edit]

duplicating another file VasyaRogov (talk) 11:03, 29 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:HK 柴灣 Chai Wan Road 怡泰街 Yee Tai Street 永利中心 Winner Centre restaurant food menu night September 2021 SS2.jpg[edit]

Copyrighted food menu in Hong Kong. Solomon203 (talk) 11:08, 29 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:HK 柴灣道 Chai Wan Road near 漁灣邨 Yue Wan Estate September 2021 SS2 013.jpg[edit]

Copyrighted food menu in Hong Kong. Solomon203 (talk) 11:09, 29 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:HK CW 柴灣道 Chai Wan Road 漁灣邨 Yue Wan Estate shop stationery September 2021 SS2 03.jpg[edit]

COM:PACKAGE Solomon203 (talk) 11:09, 29 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Operation Reconnect -03- (50339084893).png[edit]

Derivative work of a copyrighted banner A1Cafel (talk) 11:13, 29 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  •  Keep. The copyrighted elements here are de minimis. The dollar bill and the Sistine Chapel ceiling are both in the public domain. The changes to the Sistine Chapel ceiling art are small and not readily apparent unless you look closely. IronGargoyle (talk) 01:55, 5 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Mann sitzend am FKK Strand.jpg[edit]

Out of scope, user has already been informed on their talk page that Commons is not an amateur porn site. Ameisenigel (talk) 11:50, 29 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Keep This is a good and useful picture of the Watt. FKK beaches are clearly in scope and this image even doesn't show any pornography at all. PaterMcFly (talk) 14:59, 29 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Kurki-patsas.jpg[edit]

The file is a derivative work of Kurjet, a 1949 sculpture by Emil Filén (1890–1958; Q5490295), located in Lappeenranta, Finland. The original work (the sculpture) is still under copyright and thus not in public domain until 2029-01-01. Freedom of panorama is for buildings only in Finland. Apalsola t • c 12:25, 29 January 2024 (UTC) –– (fix typo) Apalsola t • c 14:19, 29 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]


File:Ralf Hafner (2024).jpg[edit]

possible copyvio (c) Fotostudio Fieguth M2k~dewiki (talk) 13:33, 29 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ich habe die Nutzungsrechte an dem Foto vom Fotostudio Fieguth käuflich erworben. RHAPDM (talk) 14:05, 29 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Sex position kneeling.jpg[edit]

No indication of own work. 186.174.107.225 13:44, 29 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The photo shown is my own work. It was taken during a shoot for several different representations of positions. The aim was to show only the positions, without any other surroundings, background or furnishings, in order to focus the viewer's gaze only on the two people and not distract them. To prove that this is my own work, I have now uploaded the unedited original file. Please do not delete the file. Although there are numerous photographic representations in commons, these are mostly photos that show the people in a common environment and distract from the actual intention to be represented, the actual position. I therefore ask you not to delete the file.
What other proof is needed to show that this is your own work? Ravie (talk) 16:15, 29 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Due to the dark exposure of the original file, I have uploaded a colour-optimised and brightened version. Ravie (talk) 19:42, 31 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Alexei Pavlov.png[edit]

No indication of own work. 186.174.107.225 13:49, 29 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Mitchell J. Hope.png[edit]

Photo from Youtube clip. Failed license review Thuresson (talk) 14:28, 29 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Delete Copyvio, this file is not freely-licensed. 185.172.241.184 13:39, 31 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Info: https://web.archive.org/web/20190603030851/https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_xgKMcD7wEM shows a CC license. --Achim55 (talk) 13:48, 31 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Nechay Olivér-családi körben.jpg[edit]

Based on the request of one person on the photo. Kövics György (talk) 14:56, 29 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Long March 5 launching Yaogan-41.jpg[edit]

The source listed in the file did not suggest it to be release in public domain. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shujianyang (talk • contribs)

File:Jean-Luc Lemoine Saverne 2023 (1).jpg[edit]

Mon propre travail : souhaite supprimer Le Commissaire (talk) 16:48, 29 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:President Direct Election Movement Ming-te Shih Yi-hsiung Lin and Hsin-liang Hsu.jpg[edit]

Marked as unfree file on English Wikipedia, dubious copyright status A1Cafel (talk) 16:50, 29 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:President Direct Election Movement Ming-te Shih Yi-hsiung Lin and Hsin-liang Hsu (cropped).jpg[edit]

Marked as unfree file on English Wikipedia, dubious copyright status A1Cafel (talk) 16:50, 29 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Arizona state seal.svg[edit]

Uploader does not have authority to grant license. Note this page (PDF) from the Arizona Government Secretary of State site [2] which reads in part: 

"Use of the Seal - Restrictions under the law
Secretary Hobbs grants and denies permission to use the Great
Seal of the State of Arizona under A.R.S. § 41-130 which states, “41-
130. Use of state seal restricted; violation; classification
A person may use, display or otherwise employ any facsimile,
copy, likeness, imitation or other resemblance of the great seal of this
state only after obtaining the approval of the secretary of state. The
secretary of state may grant a certificate of approval upon application
by any person showing good cause for the use of the great seal of this
state for a proper purpose. The great seal of this state shall in no way
be employed by anyone other than a state agency for the purpose of
advertising or promoting the sale of any article of merchandise what-
ever within this state or for promoting any other commercial purpose.
The secretary of state may promulgate rules for the use of the great
seal of this state or any facsimile, copy, likeness, imitation or other
resemblance of the great seal. Any person who knowingly violates this
section is guilty of a class 3 misdemeanor.”

File:State Seal of Arizona.svg[edit]

Tagged as work of the US Center for Disease Control - while the CDC may have had the seal on their website, they are neither the creator nor copyright holder of the seal. Note this page (PDF) from the Arizona Government Secretary of State site [3] which reads in part: 

"Use of the Seal - Restrictions under the law
Secretary Hobbs grants and denies permission to use the Great
Seal of the State of Arizona under A.R.S. § 41-130 which states, “41-
130. Use of state seal restricted; violation; classification
A person may use, display or otherwise employ any facsimile,
copy, likeness, imitation or other resemblance of the great seal of this
state only after obtaining the approval of the secretary of state. The
secretary of state may grant a certificate of approval upon application
by any person showing good cause for the use of the great seal of this
state for a proper purpose. The great seal of this state shall in no way
be employed by anyone other than a state agency for the purpose of
advertising or promoting the sale of any article of merchandise what-
ever within this state or for promoting any other commercial purpose.
The secretary of state may promulgate rules for the use of the great
seal of this state or any facsimile, copy, likeness, imitation or other
resemblance of the great seal. Any person who knowingly violates this
section is guilty of a class 3 misdemeanor.”
  •  Keep These are trademark-like non-copyright restrictions; the "commercial use" there means something completely different than "commercial use" in a copyright context. These type of restrictions are precisely why we have the {{Insignia}} tag. Virtually all states, and the U.S. federal government too, has similar laws (since trademark treaty/law bans government seals from being fully trademarked; you can prevent other trademarks from incorporating them but not actually register as a trademark). The "use" in this means to imply a relationship with the state, much like trademark. It is not a copyright restriction at all. As far as copyright, per Commons:Coats of arms, each different drawing of the seal (which typically has a written description) is an independent copyright, and is not a derivative work of the general design (which is an idea). This particular rendition (or expression of that idea) was done by the US federal government, so the copyright is solely that. Carl Lindberg (talk) 21:09, 29 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • This misconception has come up many times before, though I haven't seen it for a while. The copyright is freely licensed. The above NOT a copyright-based restriction and has nothing to do with COM:PRP. If there are non-copyright restrictions, then of course users can't violate those. If you use a person's likeness without getting their permission, that's also bad -- we have {{Personality rights}} to remind users of those. A free copyright license does not give you the right to violate trademark -- we have {{Trademarked}} to denote those. And in this situation, we have the {{Insignia}} tag to remind people there could be some other, non-copyright restrictions on what you can do with it. That does not affect "free", which is solely based on the copyright alone. You are suggesting we delete every governmental seal on Commons, basically, because they pretty much all have laws like this. Including the symbol we use on the {{PD-USGov}} tag itself. Every trademarked logo also has restrictions, and we allow those for the same reason. There is nothing special about Arizona. This is a case about someone who ran afoul of Alaska's law, by selling products with the Alaska seal on them without permission. Of course you can't do that. But it's fine to host here; it is not breaking that law. The words "use" and "commercial use" have completely different meanings than what we are used to in this context; it's a mistake to assume they are the same thing. Carl Lindberg (talk) 22:59, 29 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      •  Comment Well, since we have templates to alert of trademark and personality rights, perhaps we need some clear template explaining something to the effect that "Unauthorized commercial use of this image can result in the State of Arizona throwing you in jail for 30 days'". Generally, that is not a risk most people would consider when looking at free licensed/public domain images on Commons. Certainly some sort of clear warning would seem appropriate at least. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 23:26, 29 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
        • For sure -- we have {{Insignia}} for this. Which the file has. These laws are similar in intent to trademark (with some possible further penalties) -- if you use it in a way which would violate trademark if you used a trademarked design, you probably are violating these laws. Carl Lindberg (talk) 01:06, 30 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
        • If someone messes up with this or this trademark, s/he may not end up directly in jail, but gets in debt for the rest of his life, so the end result won't be much better. This is not just theory, one can ends up in jail for violating copyright, as shown by Kim Dotcom. I mean there is nothing special about this seal. Yann (talk) 07:26, 30 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Comment. I don't think the non-copyright restrictions are an issue. The problem here, potentially, is that this seems to be the Mofford seal and not the Motter seal (see the document linked by Infrogmation). The Motter seal was created circa 1911 while the Mofford seal was created in 1980 (if we consider the Mofford seal to be a significantly original creative work). There is also the possibility for the Mofford seal to be in the public domain per {{PD-US-1978-1989}} if we can determine that the copyright was not registered within 5 years. IronGargoyle (talk) 00:34, 30 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • The design of any U.S. state seal is typically in their law, and is {{PD-EdictGov}} regardless. Additionally (and as discussed at Commons:Coats of arms), a drawing cannot be a derivative work of a written description -- they are separate expressions of the same idea. For copyright on those, we look to see who was the author of the particular drawing. We don't copy particular drawings off of state sites because those can be protected by copyright. This one was part of a series drawn by the U.S. federal government. Carl Lindberg (talk) 01:06, 30 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Keep and add the {{PD-EdictGov}} tag. The restrictions mentioned above are not related to the copyright status of the work and such restrictions generally do not preclude a file from being hosted on Commons. The {{Insignia}} should be included to warn potential users regardless. funplussmart (talk) 22:45, 31 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • The PD-EdictGov part generally has no bearing on the copyright of the drawing itself -- it's not a derivative work, usually. The copyrightable expression for a drawing is in the exact lines they choose (none of which is in the text), and the expression in a literary work is in the specific words they choose, none of which is present in a drawing. I'm sure there are edge cases even here, but usually the design and the drawing are completely separate -- see Idea–expression distinction. Sometimes the law may embody an actual drawing though, in which case it would apply. Carl Lindberg (talk) 03:06, 1 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

No permission from the source. Some photos may be old enough to be in PD, but additional verification is required

A1Cafel (talk) 17:21, 29 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:CarmelPolytechnicCollege.jpg[edit]

Higher res version of the same image (identical trees but minor alteration to scenery in the very centre of the image) can be found at https://web.archive.org/web/20130901002343/http://carmelalumni.org/photogallery.htm from 2008. Belbury (talk) 18:41, 29 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:PATRONES DE EXPRESION DE HOX EN ARCOS FARINGEOS.png[edit]

article wasn't published under CC license ZimskoSonce (talk) 19:01, 29 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Anh ta đến với bộ ngực săn chắc, một người đàn ông cao lớn, khỏe mạnh với một vết cắt ngang má.jpg[edit]

This file was initially tagged by Spinixster as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: The work was created in 2000 per the website, so it is not free. Yann (talk) 19:05, 29 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

See the website listed in the "Other versions". It says the work was created in 2000 for the Oxford version of the book. Spinixster (talk) 00:47, 30 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Killer Queen featuring Patrick Myers.jpg[edit]

Image Courtesy of the Stiefel Theatre https://hayspost.com/posts/3785feaf-1ce3-46b7-bf27-d648ffc47b32 via google lens ZimskoSonce (talk) 19:07, 29 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Files uploaded by Louis XIII (talk · contribs)[edit]

Possible copyvio: Seem to be drawings and paintings from Arnaud Courlet de Vregille

CoffeeEngineer (talk) 19:08, 29 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Letter by Rev. Ringle Thoube to his Younger Sister and Engaged Wife.jpg[edit]

This file was initially tagged by ~AntanO4task as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: https://web.facebook.com/222496431171518/photos/a.235563243198170/316384655116028/?locale=bg_BG
Converted to regular DR to allow for discussion. As the original is from 1816, the image should be ok per PD-Art/PD-Old. License-templates need to be corrected. -- Túrelio (talk) 19:30, 29 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Keep Clearly, a letter from 1816 is no longer under copyright. PaterMcFly (talk) 11:51, 30 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:First Church of south Travancore.jpg[edit]

This file was initially tagged by ~AntanO4task as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-0sDm_iBkYBM/ULjCH5YqlBI/AAAAAAAABZQ/B64y5cP3Ta4/s1600/424555_207093272725351_100002740405595_276975_1422346333_n.jpg
Converted to regular DR to allow for discussion. If the drawing (!) is from 1809, it's in the PD. License-templates need to be corrected. -- Túrelio (talk) 19:32, 29 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Keep Looks like an early photograph, but that would be nearly impossible in 1809. In either case, documents from that year are clearly PD. PaterMcFly (talk) 11:53, 30 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Cik Minah Sayang 1.wav[edit]

The uploader is not the author: see https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_uploaded_by_Astari28 CoffeeEngineer (talk) 19:36, 29 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Deskripsi Suara Gendang.wav[edit]

The uploader is not the author, it will be uploaded separately by the author: see https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_uploaded_by_Astari28 CoffeeEngineer (talk) 19:45, 29 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Kuala Deli Versi Ogg.ogg[edit]

The uploader is not the author, it will be uploaded separately by the author: see https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_uploaded_by_Astari28 CoffeeEngineer (talk) 19:55, 29 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Deskripsi Gendang Versi Ogg.ogg[edit]

The uploader is not the author, it will be uploaded separately by the author: see https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_uploaded_by_Astari28 CoffeeEngineer (talk) 19:55, 29 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:ANAKALA 1.wav[edit]

The uploader is not the author, it will be uploaded separately by the author: see https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_uploaded_by_Astari28 CoffeeEngineer (talk) 19:57, 29 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Files found with Special:Search/Tengku Ryo Rizqan[edit]

The uploader is not the author, it will be uploaded separately by the author: see https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_uploaded_by_Astari28

CoffeeEngineer (talk) 19:58, 29 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Hybridlok.jpg[edit]

ich bitte daurm das es gelöscht wird, da es nicht mehr gebraucht wird. Mariofan93 (talk) 20:41, 29 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Dieseltriebwagen.jpg[edit]

ich bitte daurm das es gelöscht wird, da es nicht mehr gebraucht wird. Mariofan93 (talk) 20:42, 29 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:IRUEL.jpg[edit]

No own work 186.172.203.249 21:08, 29 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:100 n.jpg[edit]

No own, F1 186.172.203.249 21:14, 29 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:راشد احمد العامري حارس نادي بني ياس.jpg[edit]

No own, original Facebook 186.172.203.249 21:14, 29 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Andrus.kasesalu1.jpg[edit]

Possible copyvio: The model is marked as the author, and not the author as per metadata CoffeeEngineer (talk) 21:16, 29 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Dannysingz at a aquatic park..jpg[edit]

Possible copyvio: The model is marked as the author CoffeeEngineer (talk) 21:19, 29 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

Possible copyvio: The model is marked as the author, F10

CoffeeEngineer (talk) 21:59, 29 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Files uploaded by Kenan Kotmic (talk · contribs)[edit]

Possible copyvio: The model is marked as the author, F10

CoffeeEngineer (talk) 22:18, 29 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Files in Category:Bob Mauws[edit]

All images are not own work from the uploader and are probably not in the public domain.

Sjoerd de Bruin (talk) 22:29, 29 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

Possible copyvio: The model is marked as the author

CoffeeEngineer (talk) 22:34, 29 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Files uploaded by Dyanpaul2 (talk · contribs)[edit]

Possible copyvio: The model is marked as the author

CoffeeEngineer (talk) 22:45, 29 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Files in Category:Sandra de Groot[edit]

One of the images has several variants on https://atelierchaos.com, and the other is in a similar style or looks professionally made. More information is needed about the original author of these photographs.

Sjoerd de Bruin (talk) 23:11, 29 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:TheWagon.ogg[edit]

1925 sound recording from the US, under the Music Modernization Act, we cannot host this here until 2026. Abzeronow (talk) 23:17, 29 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Ebrahim Dashti.jpg[edit]

Thanks to user Modern Sciences for bringing this to my attention. It was originally set as speedy deletion but I don't think it is an obvious copyright violation, as the deletion request suggests. Thus I have nominated it for deletion to be discussed instead. The reason I have added the {{PD-Iran}} was because the image which was released in the 80's, is of a government official (from Gisoom) and which article 16 of said template, considers this to now be free of license. This has exceeded 30 years. Therefore, I believe this is within free images, if you could clarify why or more information on it I would appreciate that. Regarding the author, that wouldn't warrant a speedy deletion (as far as my knowledge here goes). The reasoning for this was: as it was an official government paper which was released thus the reasoning for Government of Iran selected as author. --Ali313korosh (talk) 19:00, 29 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Also I would like to add, Gisoom is not a book publisher, rather it locates books published online. The book in question is work of official Government Body, The Assembly of Experts. Which was published at the time of the first term of the Council of Assembly of Experts, C.1980-1982. Note: The author issue has been cleared up and the right author has been mentioned. --Ali313korosh (talk) 19:04, 29 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Keep - From article 16 of this template, it is free of any copyright infringements, as the work is from a Government Pulbic Body - The Assembly of Experts. It was published in the first term of the Assembly of Experts, so C.1981-1982. {{PD-IRAN}} --Ali313korosh (talk) 00:28, 30 January 2024

File:Kortez fot. Hubert Misiaczyk.jpg[edit]

Possible copyvio: The uploader is not the author CoffeeEngineer (talk) 23:22, 29 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

Possible copyvio: From Facebook, A watermark appears on one of the pictures

CoffeeEngineer (talk) 23:34, 29 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

Possible copyvio: The uploader is one of the memeber of the band, who is on every picture, Another author appearsin metadata

CoffeeEngineer (talk) 23:48, 29 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Files uploaded by Beartspet bme (talk · contribs)[edit]

Possible copyvio: From Facebook, Pictures of a website

CoffeeEngineer (talk) 23:52, 29 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/2024/01/29&oldid=849708309"