Commons:Deletion requests/2024/09/07

6 September 2024

8 September 2024

Deletion requests on 7 September 2024

September 7

File:Nalgonda map.jpg

Andhra Pradesh Government website images are copyrighted Arjunaraoc (talk) 10:37, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I made another version to replace the file if deleted: File:Nalgonda mandals pre 2016 numbers.png. It is based on another old map and the issue is that all the old maps may originally come from the same source. --MGA73 (talk) 08:58, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. While the archived website does have a copyright notice, this seems at odds with Indian law as described at {{GODL-India}}. There are US Federal Government Flickr streams which claim "all rights reserved" on their work, but we still treat them as public domain. IronGargoyle (talk) 14:32, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@IronGargoyle do Indian state governments have the same release as the Indian national government? Bastique ^{☎ let's talk!} 02:04, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:جامعة القصيم.jpg

Copyrighted Materials: no information on the licence Michel Bakni (talk) 15:07, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This image is full size and has all the relevant metadata of the original photograph. There's not much reason to believe the uploader is not the copyright holder. Have you checked to find if there's a different source for it? Bastique ^{☎ let's talk!} 23:24, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Michel Bakni: No hits on TinEye, camera EXIF. Abzeronow (talk) 23:57, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files uploaded by AlexLeeCN (talk · contribs)

The tag used is {{PD-PRC-exempt}} and it is not clear to me that will cover the National Athem as it is a piece of music,not a law or judicial resolution. Also the National Anthem Law seems to forbid derivative works [1]: «There will be punishment for deliberately altering the lyrics or music of the national anthem, ...». Also the footer from the source states «All rights reserved. The content (including but not limited to text, photo, multimedia information, etc) published in this site belongs to www.gov.cn.. Without written authorization from www.gov.cn, such content shall not be republished or used in any form.» (or course it is only applicable if the tag doesn't apply.)

Günther Frager (talk) 19:15, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(1). The release (Chinese ver.) shall be considered as delegated legislation, which will become a part of National Anthem Law . According to National Anthem Law Article 10 Subparagraph 4 "The department determined by the State Council shall organize the examination, determination and makingof the standard musical notation of the national anthem and the official recording of the national anthem, and release them on the website of the National People's Congress and the website of the Chinese Central Government", while release press has stated, "According to the National Anthem Law". Hence, the musical notation and recording are released under the law.

This relevance could be verified by the press conference, the official stated：”由于演奏曲谱的类型比较多，...，其中有的曲谱篇幅比较长，把它们都作为法律附件不现实，所以国歌法第十条规定...“ ("Since there are many types of performance scores... Some of them are so long that it's impractical to annex them all to the law, so Article 10 of the National Anthem Law states... ") . It's clear that the musical notation has the same legal effect as the annex of the law, the only difference is this time is it is delegated to the government, not the congress.

(2). Article 10 (Where the national anthem is played and sung on the occasions prescribed in Article 4 of this Law, the standard musical notation of the national anthem or the official recording of the national anthem shall be used) has stated the musical notation has legal effect and are accordant with the Copyright Law Article 5 (laws...documents of legislative, administrative or judicial nature).

(3). The limitation of usage is definitely a Non-copyright restrictions. Violating it (insulting the anthem) will only bring criminal or administrative responsibility, and is not considered relevant to the freedom usageor copyright. (BTW, from my personal view, the Chinese word 篡改 should not translate to alter. Tampering is more accurate.)

(4). The footer of the copyright statement is more like a general declaration and can be reversed with other evidence, otherwise the Constitution may be copyrightable. Best regard. --AlexLeeCN (talk) 14:30, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Logo ONCE.svg

Nominated for speedy deletion by Grandmaster Huon. Appeal by the uploader. The characteristics of the logo make it eligible for PD-textlogo protection. Fer1997 (talk) 22:36, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What characteristics? This seems like a complex stick figure. It's not mere simple shapes. Grandmaster Huon (talk) 03:29, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The shapes are simple enough to be under the TOO in the terms of current Spanish law and case law. Provided that the current state of legal regulation and precedent is not clear enough and that the consensus is for a permissive interpretation of those terms, I argue we

Keep this and other logos as they can be deemed eligible for PD-textlogo, PD-shape and eventually PD-trademarked protection. --Fer1997 (talk) 08:37, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Strakhov: Your thoughts? Above or below ToO? Abzeronow (talk) 18:30, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm no lawyer. This is the most relevant source I could find. Ideas are not protected. I'd say ...below?, maybe the trademark protection template is enough here, but, as said, no lawyer, nor judge, at all (so take my uneducated guess with a grain of salt 🤷). Strakhov (talk) 20:12, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]