Commons:Deletion requests/2024/05/18
.jpg){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
May 18
[edit]
This file was initially tagged by Sebbog13 as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: Copyrighted logos and game, should be undeleted in circa 100 years Di (they-them) (talk) 00:22, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
-20240518002200-File:Slither.io_in_Chromium.png){kind=link}
- I'm challenging this speedy deletion because I think an argument can be made for COM:DEMINIMIS since the logos are tiny, slightly translucent, and in the corners of the screen. Di (they-them) (talk) 00:23, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
- Oh sorry, don't delete it, per User:Di (they-them), I might have also falsely claimed copyright violation for friday night funkin images after I realised some other files of the characters were on github under MIT ... Not sure tho. - Sebbog13 (talk) 00:28, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Painting is likely to be protected by copyright, although it may be a painting by an anonymous person Fumikas Sagisavas (talk) 03:10, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
the picture does not match the description, obviously a mistake Gampe (talk) 04:24, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
COM:SPAM, promotional image uploaded by company; no usage outside wikidata, out of scope Gnomingstuff (talk) 06:46, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Digital Saying (talk · contribs)
[edit]COM:SPAM, promotional images uploaded by likely company rep; no usage outside wikidata, out of scope
Gnomingstuff (talk) 06:47, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
Portrait of Stalin, SELF-photographed by uploader in 2023. Enyavar (talk) 09:36, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
same CopyVio issue:
.jpg){kind=link}
Hi, this media was nominated for speedy deletion by the Swatjester under the written reason of "While the original underlying work of the drone footage may be PD-USGov, there's no evidence at all to suggest that the derivative work created therefrom and published to Reddit, which is what's been uploaded here, is the work of a US government employee."
Not clear what he/she means by this, but the footage uploaded on reddit, outside of being cropped to be shortened by the reddit-source uploaded, has not been modified or changed in any other uniquely distinguishable way from the source material to be reasonably classified as a derivative work from the source. The reddit user whom uploaded the video of which this media is sourced from, has no evidence in any way, of being involved in the original recording & de-classification/publishing of the drone footage, of which was made from a reconnaissance drone operated by a federal United States Military employee during the War in Afghanistan.
Just because the uploader of the source of the video on reddit of which this media was taken from may have cropped to shorten it, this minor form of editing/changing of the file is unique/distinguishable enough for the copyright status of the media to now become his intellectual ownership (or anyone else's.)
Alternative request for deletion discussion made in disagreement to Swatjester's notion.
HanyNAR (talk) 10:05, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
- Endorsement of @HanyNAR. I don't see the reason for deleting a media documented created by members of the US Government. Cutting the footage to make it shorter and/or uploading it by a third party, to a 3rd party corporate website doesn't change its original license, nor revoke its public-domain status? UnderworldCircle (talk) 12:44, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
Duplicate Мункач Варош (talk) 10:53, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
Duplicate Мункач Варош (talk) 10:58, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
Personal photo for non-Wikipedian. Out of scope Mohammdaon (talk) 11:04, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
Duplicate Мункач Варош (talk) 11:07, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
Kosovar FoP does not cover temporary works like the billboard of Bill Clinton being shown on a building along the Bill Clinton Boulevard. See also w:en:Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2024 May 18#File:Bill Clinton Boulevard2.jpg. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 11:09, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
- @JWilz12345: 2003? That's before 2008 Kosovo declaration of independence so I think {{FoP-Serbia}} (which includes 2D) applies? Multichill (talk) 21:39, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
- @Multichill even so, Serbian FoP does not cover temporary works. The Bill Clinton billboard is meant to be changed for several instances, so I don't think it is permanent. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 22:26, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
- But no, it was uploaded on English Wikipedia on May 20, 2007, a month after the publication of Kosovo's very first copyright law on their Official Gazette. Assuming we inherit the action made at enwiki, it is still not applicable as the upload date was made during the time of the Kosovar law. The act of taking the photograph is irrelevant as the actual publication in relation to Wikimedia was first made in May 2007. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 22:50, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
.png){kind=link}
.png&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Duplicate Мункач Варош (talk) 11:10, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
.png){kind=link}
Duplicate Мункач Варош (talk) 11:11, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
Duplication of File:Android KitKat logo.svg Indonesia 2006 (talk) 06:57, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Yann (talk) 20:08, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
Duplicate Мункач Варош (talk) 11:13, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
Duplicate Мункач Варош (talk) 11:15, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
Possible copyvio: From the official website https://abkafitzhenley.com/ CoffeeEngineer (talk) 11:27, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
The file is not in use and there is an improved version: File:Android Lollipop Logo.svg Мункач Варош (talk) 11:58, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
The file is not in use and there is an improved version: File:Android Lollipop Logo.svg Мункач Варош (talk) 11:58, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
Keep It is in use in Android and the SVG version is not identical — NickK (talk) 21:25, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
This a screenshot, and yet captioned as "personal work". Which I don't believe for a second. Likely copyright violation (some of her youtube video are CC-BY, but without a more precise source, this one can't be checked). Esprit Fugace (talk) 12:01, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
There is an improved version of this image: File:Android 11 Developer Preview logo.svg Мункач Варош (talk) 12:04, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
There is an improved version of this image: File:Android 11 Developer Preview logo.svg Мункач Варош (talk) 12:07, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
There is an improved version of this image: File:Android Honeycomb Logo.png Мункач Варош (talk) 12:12, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
There is an improved version of this image: File:Android Ice Cream Sandwich Logo.svg Мункач Варош (talk) 12:15, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
There is an improved version of this image: File:Android Jelly Bean Logo.svg Мункач Варош (talk) 12:17, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
Unauthorized reproduction from the following site: https://cyuuken.hatenablog.jp/entry/35573033. This copyright is owned by Kenji Yoshida (cyuuken1). 火乃狐 (talk) 12:27, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
In my opinion none of the license points applies and the file is a copyvio. Taivo (talk) 13:45, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
- Keep While the Japan license looks incorrect, the image was created by an editor using public domain elements. The creator should have used a CC license. --RAN (talk) 05:25, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
- But in my opinion the file is not made of PD elements. Taivo (talk) 11:17, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
Oppose
@Taivo This user is referring to the license attached to the image file of the Self-Defense Forces’ unit emblem uploaded by Los688. According to ja:Wikipedia:井戸端/subj/地方自治体の旗・章の著作権に関して, there is a debate about the copyright of the emblems of municipalities, but the emblems of the Self-Defense Forces are also defined by a directive. Also, because its design is in the directive that becomes public domain under Article 13 of the Japanese Copyright Law, I believe that the license attached to that file is appropriate. Currently, many of the emblems of Japanese local governments are based on the content discussed in ja:Wikipedia:井戸端/subj/地方自治体の旗・章の著作権に関して. If that claim is not accepted, it will be necessary to delete many files for copyright infringement.- Luke atlas (talk) 10:54, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
This image appears to be a photoshopped version of this image found in https://www.quincyforcongress.com/. I can't find any CC0 license on the source website. MKFI (talk) 14:01, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
This image is fake and this building is not Jundi-shapur. Generally, no building is remaind from the ancient Jundi-shapur. Mmojtabaa (talk) 11:32, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. Used many times. --Yann (talk) 19:14, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
As an IP user found out (see file tp) this depicts Dolbadarn Castle, so it might have been uploaded to fawiki as a hoax. It is a greyscaled small version of this photo, so we have neither a free license nor a permission. Achim55 (talk) 14:10, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
Duplicate of File:Flag of the League of Nations (1939).svg. Fry1989 eh? 14:26, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
.svg){kind=link}
Source https://www.instagram.com/davinia.willems Dawiniawil (talk) 14:46, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Itsronitraj (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons:What Commons is not#Wikimedia Commons is not your personal free web host. Not used.
EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:58, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by 125.230.87.68 as Copyvio (Copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: Clear copyright violation of logo. Kadı Message 15:00, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
Near exact replica of File:Sky painting.jpg. Redundant —Matrix(!) {user - talk? - uselesscontributions} 15:29, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
near exact replica of File:Golden ages.jpg, redundant —Matrix(!) {user - talk? - uselesscontributions} 15:30, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
near exact replica of File:Like a beach.jpg, significantly more blurry —Matrix(!) {user - talk? - uselesscontributions} 15:30, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
useless ; note that the category "uploads by fae neednig speedy deletion" has been removed... F (talk) 15:35, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Iwaqarhashmi as Logo. Weak keep: seems below COM:TOO US, and probably also COM:TOO Norway. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 16:20, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
similr https://www.sanpou-s.net/school/detail/1503/ eien20 (talk) 16:35, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
Unrecognized object - too small to be of any use Krok6kola (talk) 16:45, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
Almost duplicated with File:Gare de Magenta 20.jpg Remontees (talk) 17:35, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
Almost duplicated with Gare de Magenta 23.jpg Remontees (talk) 17:35, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
Duplicated with File:Gare de Magenta 57.jpg Remontees (talk) 17:36, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
File:Dr. Amba Ambaiowei as a Bayelsa State representative at the National Political Reforms Conference in Abuja chaired by Justice Niki Toby in 2005.jpg
[edit]
Is this an own work? 186.175.21.245 17:44, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
Out of scope: a blurry, shaky video of a light flashing on a USB charger socket. No conceivable educational use. Omphalographer (talk) 18:08, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
.svg/15px-Pictogram_voting_comment_(orange).svg.png)
Comment Hi! I would just like to explain the reason that I uploaded this. The intention of the image is to show a symptom of a hardware fault, which could have an educational purpose for people who are learning about issues with electronics. QwertyForest (talk) 18:32, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
wrong date, probably wrong author and wrong source Xocolatl (talk) 18:12, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
source? copyright violation? Xocolatl (talk) 18:15, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
Unknown author couldn't die 70 years ago. No evidence of PD. 188.123.231.62 09:48, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
- Keep PD-Poland --RAN (talk) 13:34, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
- User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ), finally, have the decency to announce here that you have been silently changing the description of files after their nomination. Do you think it makes you look smarter than the topic starter? --188.123.231.43 15:41, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
- What or who is a "topic starter"? If you don't like people using the edit function, lobby to have it removed. You can't complain that we need to delete an image because of deficiencies in the uploader's information, then complain when the info is fixed. --RAN (talk) 17:14, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
- Keep PD-Poland--FLLL (talk) 17:08, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
- User:FLLL, there is still no evidence that this particular photo was made by Polish photographer or published for the first time in Poland as well as it was first published before 1 March 1989 without copyright notice as per PD-Poland requirements. --188.123.231.43 15:41, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
- We use the best information available at the time, including a reverse image search to see if anyone was named as the photographer. We also use Occam's Razor and math, since we know the years of birth and death and where the person lived. If they lived anywhere in the EU, the status would still be the same. You can use absurdist speculation on any image, even where we know the photographer: What if the photographer's spouse pressed the shutter release button while the attributed photographer was in the bathroom? What if the attributed photographer was sick that day and their assistant pressed the shutter release? What if the camera was on an automated timer, and no one pressed the shutter release? What if a wild monkey wandered into the photo studio and pressed the shutter release button? --RAN (talk) 17:18, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- It seems obvious to me that some people think they are political commissars and are more royal than the king. It is always easier to be negative (to suppress) than positive (to create);--FLLL (talk) 10:04, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
- User:FLLL, you steal other people’s artworks, upload them under fake rationales and consider yourself the Creator? Get back to the position you deserve. --188.123.231.32 18:58, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
- It seems obvious to me that some people think they are political commissars and are more royal than the king. It is always easier to be negative (to suppress) than positive (to create);--FLLL (talk) 10:04, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
Delete. If there was some evidence tying it to Poland, I would be confident to say this was {{PD-Poland}}. The subject was born near Poland, but seems to have spent most of his life (including the period where this photo was supposedly taken) on the Soviet side of the border. IronGargoyle (talk) 01:47, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
- Russia is 70 years. --RAN (talk) 18:57, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
- Stop edit warring and random/false licensing. Firstly, not 70, but 70+4. And secondly, this starts from the date of the proven publication, and not from the date of creation fabricated by you. --188.123.231.32 19:07, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
- Russia is 70 years. --RAN (talk) 18:57, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
Comment For now, I've protected the file against further edit-warring. It can be unprotected when this DR gets closed. --Túrelio (talk) 19:33, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
- Túrelio, can you explain your edit, that reverted file description to obviously false PD rationale? Please feel free to check the article and make sure that this person never had anything to do with Poland. Why Poland, and not Brazil or New Zealand? Or you want to demonstrate that an unregistered user is always wrong, even if they canceled a deliberately false rationale? --188.123.231.32 14:27, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
- Túrelio, since you continue to remain silent, should it be assumed that you cannot give any reasoned answer? --188.123.231.32 06:06, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
Weak delete The image is probably old enough to be in the public domain either in Poland or in Russia, but we simply don't have the information on authorship and publication history needed to determine this. We don't know whether it's from Poland, so we don't have a base to just apply that PD-Poland template. We don't even know whether the photographer is positively unknown/anonymous or just not mentioned at the immediate image source. Gestumblindi (talk) 20:28, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
- Delete. No one has said how they know the photo is from Poland and the only argument for it seems to be it works out best to claim it is from Poland. FLLL's smart-alec remark is not evidence of where the photograph was taken. That doesn't even get into how we know it was from the 1930s. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 01:48, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
- Weak delete. No evidence that this was a Polish photograph. Is likely a Russian photograph, and we don't have enough information to determine when it was published or if the photographer was known. Photographer could have worked during WW2 and lived past 1948. Abzeronow (talk) 18:20, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Yann (talk) 15:07, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
The decision to keep the file was wrong. We have even no source. We have no evidence, that depicted person is Shmuel Rosin. We have no evidence, that the photo was ever published before upload into Commons. We have no evidence, that the author is anonymous – the fact that I and you do not know the author does not make it anonymous. Taivo (talk) 18:54, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
- Delete the only thing I would like to add is the deliberately false addition of a PD-Poland tag made during the previous discussion, despite the fact that the person depicted has nothing common to Poland and lived his entire life in Russia / USSR. --188.123.231.32 19:05, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
- Delete. While I think the image creator is likely anonymous, there was nothing linking this image conclusively to Poland in the last deletion request and there is nothing linking this image to the greater EU now. IronGargoyle (talk) 02:39, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
Files in Category:Kunsthaus Zürich (Heimplatz 5)
[edit]There is no FoP for interior views in Switzerland. The building was designed by David Chipperfield, who is still alive. The building was described in a monograph and also architectural reviews such as here or here or here
- File:Kunsthaus Foyer Haefner.jpeg
- File:Kunsthaus Zürich Aufgang zum Neubau.jpg
- File:Kunsthaus Zürich Verbindungsgang.JPG
Paradise Chronicle (talk) 20:32, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
- Keep. Just some simple concrete walls, stone tile floors, and a bit of utilitarian furniture. These are de minimis portions of a larger architectural work. Nothing in the images rise about the threshold of originality. IronGargoyle (talk) 02:12, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by TigerPower1 as Speedy (speedydelete) and the most recent rationale was: outdated and want to replace. Past the G7 deadline, and the uploader is a different account. Please explain. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 20:46, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
- Keep. Not seeing a valid reason to delete this image. ✗plicit 04:28, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
- Please delete this photo as I have made multiple requests. I am Daniel de Weldon. TigerPower1 (talk) 04:31, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
FoP is only valid for exterior appearances in Germany. The building was designed by the architects Herzog & De Meuron who are both still alive.
Paradise Chronicle (talk) 20:51, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
COM:Toys copyrighted character and potentially copyrighted art elsewhere in picture Elisfkc (talk) 21:12, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
Sicherlich eine nette Idee, ein Bandfoto einer angeblichen Ostrockband hochzuladen, das eine Bandprobe aus dem Jahr 1976 (?) zeigen soll und es mit dem Datum "16. Februar 2024" zu versehen. Gesichter wohl auch nicht zufällig nicht erkennbar. Ein Schelm.... Gripweed (talk) 22:28, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
Nice try, the picture shows a band rehearsal from the year 1976 or so, but the creator calls it his own work with date 2024-02-16. Of course, the faces are unrecognizable. Honi soit qui mal y pense. --Gripweed (talk) 22:32, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
