Commons:Deletion requests/2024/05/08

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
7 May 2024
9 May 2024
Deletion requests on 8 May 2024

May 8

[edit]

File:Three Servicemen Statue.jpg

[edit]

Unfree monument: see Category talk:Three Soldiers (statue)#This is a copyrighted work. Commercially-licensed image infringes the sculptor's posthumous copyright. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 09:05, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]


 Delete Creator died in 1999, undelete in 2070, I Believe. grendel|khan 08:54, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Luftaufnahme Kuhn Eugendorf.jpg

[edit]

Appears to be taken from https://www.digando.com/vermieter/kuhn-baumaschinen but I am not 100% sure whether the Commons version pre or post dates the web version. This means I am opening a full discussion rather than tagging it as a copyvio. COM:PCP applies. Even though there are full camera details I believe formal permission shoudl be given via COM:VRT 🇺🇦 Timtrent 🇺🇦 talk to me 🇺🇦 09:06, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Vietnam Veterans Memorial Statue 2023.jpg

[edit]

Unfree monument: see Category talk:Three Soldiers (statue)#This is a copyrighted work. Commercially-licensed image infringes the sculptor's posthumous copyright. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 09:06, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]


That's a pity. I apologize for the mistake, there was no intention of breaking the copyright laws of the US. It's a beautiful scene, though.
--Mojnsen (talk) 12:20, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Mojnsen that's OK. In fact, in real life there was a more serious case, involving US Postal Service and the now-deceased sculptor of the Korean War Veterans Memorial (Gaylord v. United States), concerning the USPS' use of a former Marine's image of the said monument in their 2003 commemorative stamps as part of the 50th anniversary of the Korean War ceasefire. All deleted images of the said monument are categorized at Category:Korean War Veterans Memorial-related deletion requests/deleted.
Your image of the Three Soldiers will be undeleted 70+1 years after the sculptor's death, provided that the U.S. law is still restrictive with regards to the right of netizens/content creators to freely use or exploit images of copyrighted public art. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 14:17, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If it helps, in forty-six years the image will be restored here on Commons, when that sculpture is in the public domain. It's a good picture, and it's not being deleted forever. grendel|khan 08:58, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Delete Undelete in 2070. grendel|khan 08:56, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Edmund Burke.jpg

[edit]

No proof that this archive was made available to the public more than 50 years ago and Poland extended Berne onvention. 178.37.205.142 10:47, 8 May 2024 (UTC) Template:Subst : delete3[reply]

File:Franklin VA sign.JPG

[edit]

I don't doubt this file's provenance, but as a slavish reproduction of substantial prose originally published by the Department of Conservation and Historic Resources in 1988, this is nonetheless a derivative work of whomever originally wrote it. Fourthords | =Λ= | 14:07, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files in Category:EC-Audiovisual Center review needed

[edit]

Unfortunately source says "Scopes: Information and education only" so these photos cannot be licensed under CC.

https://audiovisual.ec.europa.eu/en/copyright states: Unless otherwise indicated (e.g. in individual copyright notices) ...

// sikander { talk } 🦖 14:41, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I maintain that such a limitation violates the law of the European Commission, and is therefore not applicable, because of the rationale I laid out in Commons:Deletion requests/Template:EC-Audiovisual Center (which, I will note, was accepted by the closer). I will add that that same copyright page, after the aforementioned discussion occured, has been updated to state that "The audiovisual material (still images, moving images and sound sequences) owned by the EU and made available on the website of the Audiovisual Service of the European Commission is subject to the Commission’s reuse policy, set out by the Commission Decision of 12 December 2011 on the reuse of Commission documents," which explicitly prohibits the limitations mentioned above. Zoozaz1 (talk) 15:19, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Mary of Rosary church Portoroz1.jpg

[edit]

Per COM:FOP Slovenia: non-free modernist architecture from 1984 by Ivan Bregant (d. 2015) and Jože Marinko (living). TadejM (t/p) 14:55, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also File:Mary of Rosary parish church Portoroz bells.jpg. --TadejM (t/p) 14:57, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]


File:Zgornja Rečica (26317727652).jpg

[edit]

Per COM:FOP Slovenia: non-free modern architecture by Janez Valentinčič (d. 1994). TadejM (t/p) 15:00, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]


File:Nauvoo Leigon Band.jpg

[edit]

No info provided that this photo was indeed published before 1929. Only that it was used (and taken from) a relativily recent publication. The Banner (talk) 16:09, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It was taken from a from an 1865 series of pictures regarding the Utah Milita in the Civil War. LuxembourgLover (talk) 16:14, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So you claim that the photo were coming out of a (linked) publication but in fact the source is different? The Banner (talk) 16:56, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So we fix the source, no need for a deletion. You constantly want to delete my work instead of fixing the problems. LuxembourgLover (talk) 17:00, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That picture has a watermark and a statement "copyright not evaluated". So IMHO not suitable. The Banner (talk) 18:54, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Keep A higher quality version of the image is available here: https://catalog.churchofjesuschrist.org/assets/c98020f9-7890-4a79-9fed-39095894991d/0/12?lang=eng The reverse of the card -- https://catalog.churchofjesuschrist.org/assets/c98020f9-7890-4a79-9fed-39095894991d/0/13?lang=eng -- makes it clear the images were published in the 1860s. (The card's publisher, Savage & Ottinger, was dissolved in 1870.) The higher quality version of the image should be used and the information updated. —Tcr25 (talk) 19:18, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So a new picture to be uploaded, with corrected licenses and a corrected name? The Banner (talk) 21:00, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The current image could be retained (with improved information), but a better quality version exists so I would think we'd rather have that. It could overwrite this file or be uploaded separately and this one then gets deleted as a lower quality duplicate. —Tcr25 (talk) 23:12, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Due to questionable sourcing, a new upload would be the best option. The Banner (talk) 09:45, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Tcr25 said it is fine, I have a felling you just don't like me uploading stuff. LuxembourgLover (talk) 11:14, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@LuxembourgLover: , it's not quite fine. The file information needs to be improved and using the higher quality image would be preferred. —Tcr25 (talk) 11:46, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@LuxembourgLover: I have no problem with factual correct uploads of you. The Banner (talk) 15:07, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
File information updated. —Tcr25 (talk) 11:46, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Robert Taylor Burton Military (1821–1907).jpg

[edit]

No info provided that this photo was indeed published before 1929. Only that it was used (and taken from) a relativily recent publication. The Banner (talk) 16:10, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep Alternate print of the same image here -- https://catalog.churchofjesuschrist.org/assets/baf0cfcb-2f58-427b-b444-391d6c01fc59/0/0?lang=eng . Photo is from 1901 and the repository notes no known copyright restrictions. File info should be updated. —Tcr25 (talk) 19:27, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Keep Under USA copyright law an image loses its eligibility for a copyright at 120 years old from creation. --RAN (talk) 23:16, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Keep As uploader, no problems with copyright. Also, better a version were found. LuxembourgLover (talk)
The file information should still be updated/corrected based upon the information in the Church catalogue linked above. Tcr25 (talk) 20:15, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So again everything needs to be replaced. The Banner (talk) 09:26, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The quality of this is image is pretty good, so just updating the info and making sure the license is properly described would be fine. —Tcr25 (talk) 21:13, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've updated the file information. —Tcr25 (talk) 11:36, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files in Category:PostCardExpo 2008

[edit]

There's zero evidence these postcards or stamps are in the public domain. The original artwork certainly isn't and the stamps don't seem to be official. So these images should be deleted as COPYVIO unless someone can provide evidence to the contrary.

Adamant1 (talk) 17:24, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]


File:Vesta in natural color.jpg

[edit]

Image was not solely created by NASA, so PD can't be presumed here. The source page has no evidence of it being under a free license either. 179.221.200.5 17:37, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:George Nicolls.jpg

[edit]

This file was initially tagged by Magog the Ogre as no license (No license since)

It does have a license for the US, but not for Ireland. Circa 1910s photo, could be public domain. Abzeronow (talk) 18:01, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep per Template:PD-Ireland-anon CeltBrowne (talk) 18:04, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have proof this was published anonymously? Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 20:04, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The same photo can be found (indirectly) on the official website of the National Library of Ireland here. They date the image to 1911. They are unable to attribute a photographer to the image.
If an academic authority as high as the NLI cannot identify a photographer, I think it's reasonable to assume it was published anonymously. NLI notes the version they have was amongst photographs found in the collection of Arthur Griffith. CeltBrowne (talk) 21:33, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Karezi.jpg

[edit]

not published before 1929 – person wasn't born then. picture from 1962 according to https://www.protothema.gr/stories/article/298868/tzeni-tzeni-theatrina-me-thita-kefalaio/ and widely used on the web – license and source unclear, but probably not CC or copyright free https://www.listal.com/viewimage/6536199 — https://www.thetoc.gr/politismos/article/tzeni-karezi-i-ksexwristi-star-tou-ellinikou-kinimatografou/ Albinfo (talk) 19:00, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Wamp 3.2.0.png

[edit]

Possible copyvio: Screenshot of a software CoffeeEngineer (talk) 22:14, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep. The software in this screenshot is freely licensed. Omphalographer (talk) 00:53, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Under which license? Probably not the CC-BY-SA used here, is a correction of the license needed? Otherwise, it could maybe be argued that everything in this screenshot is below the threshold of originality. Gestumblindi (talk) 18:30, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Borduria-shield.PNG

[edit]

This was included in a deletion request by User:PseudoSkull in 2023 but without adding the DR template to the file, and not addressed by the closing admin User:Ellywa who deleted the Syldavia flags. This case is different from the Syldavia flag, as this purported "Bordurian symbol" apparently wasn't designed by Hergé for the Tintin comics but is the uploader's own invention as "a possible Bordurian symbol based on the Nazi German Eagle", per the file's description. As I commented in the previous deletion discussion, I think that it is therefore misleading, not educationally useful and out of scope. This particular file is not in use in any Wikimedia project at the time of nomination. Unfortunately, there's also an SVG version File:Borduria-shield.svg which is in use in three projects and which we therefore, if we apply COM:INUSE strictly, can't delete. It's an example of the dangers of such inventions, however, if we look at es:El cetro de Ottokar and tr:Bordurya, where the symbol is unquestioningly used as if it were part of Hergé's work; as if it were appearing in King Ottokar's Sceptre, which it is not. The third use is in a German Wikinews article where it's used as an example of a "not Nazi, but Nazi-like symbol", so this seems like a legitimate use - maybe we could remove the file from the Spanish and Turkish articles where it's mistakenly used, and rename it to something like "fictional Nazi-like symbol" for uses such as in Wikinews, to avoid confusion in the future...? Gestumblindi (talk) 22:20, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Pull-Ups at Kroger.JPG

[edit]

This photograph depicts non-free product packaging and is thus a derivative work. De minimis cannot apply here as the packaging is the central part of the subject, and the image would become useless if it is blacked out (see COM:DM#7).

If applicable fair use guidelines allow this file to continue to be used on the Cebuano, French and/or Japanese Wikipedias, this file should be locally transferred there prior to deletion. JohnCWiesenthal (talk) 23:31, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Flag of York County va.jpg

[edit]

Copyright violation Eehuiio (talk) 23:54, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/2024/05/08&oldid=887377672"