Commons:Deletion requests/2024/09/13
September 13
editcopyvio because not PD in the United States - taken 1950 unknown photographer means PD in NZ from 2000, which is after the URAA date wont be PD in US until 95 years which is 2045 TheLoyalOrder (talk) 00:02, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Ooligan as Copyvio (SD) and the most recent rationale was: F1 RandomUserGuy1738 (talk) 00:34, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
Keep The image itself is not a copyright violation, as it was produced by the George H. W. Bush Presidential Library and published on the National Archives website which is all public domain. As for the logo on the shirt, it is de minimis, hence it is below the threshold of originality for copyright. RandomUserGuy1738 (talk) 00:38, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
- @A1Cafel, you have been uploading for years, so should know:
- that this t-shirt artwork is not a "logo."
- that this artwork covers about 20 percent of the entire photograph and is a focal point in the photograph, so it is definitely not de minimis, hence unrelated to the threashold of originaity.
- that threashold of originaity is not relevant "... If a work contains a portion that is complex enough to receive copyright protection, then the whole work is considered to be copyrighted." -- Ooligan (talk) 16:54, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
Comment Yeah this is not de minimis as per COM:DM US, since the US law requires "so trivial" that will not have legal consequences, not sure this image is still useful without the artwork on the T-shirt. --A1Cafel (talk) 02:50, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
Delete per Commons:Criteria for speedy deletion -
- This t-shirt's artwork "Content is a clear copyright violation, with evidence that no Commons-compatible licensing has been issued by the copyright holder." The t-shirt's artwork has NO "reasonable possibility of discovering that the work is public domain through further research." NO "plausible argument that it is below the threshold of originality."
- On the t-shirt itself are two American nonprofit corporations:
- 1. The National Wildlife Federation established in 1936 with corporate headquarters in near Washington, D.C. According to Wikipedia, "The National Wildlife Federation is the United States' largest private, nonprofit conservation education and advocacy organization, with over six million members and supporters, and 51 state and territorial affiliated organizations (including Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands). The National Wildlife Federation Board of Directors are found here
- 2. Established in 1945, the current North Carolina Wildlife Federation Board of Directors are found here.
- The Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees respects the copyright of other American nonprofits per the official policy Commons:Project scope/Precautionary principle. where it states, "The precautionary principle is that where there is significant doubt about the freedom of a particular file, it should be deleted." -- Ooligan (talk) 15:55, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
copyvio because not PD in the United States - taken 1950 unknown photographer means PD in NZ from 2000, which is after the URAA date wont be PD in US until 95 years which is 2045 TheLoyalOrder (talk) 00:43, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
copyvio, doubtful this is own work TheLoyalOrder (talk) 01:21, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
- It seems like this user was a government representative or someone who just uploaded their pictures. I'm leaning towards the former, but it seems like this user has gone inactive and there is no way to confirm it. Either all photos should be deleted or all should stay. Zlad! (talk) 13:42, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
Derivative work of a copyrighted banner A1Cafel (talk) 03:40, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
- Keep The 'copyrighted banner' is COM:TOO trivial to attract copyright protection in such a way. Andy Dingley (talk) 07:57, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
- What about the photos on it? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:15, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
This is not a gallery page: without any image. In my opinion a gallery page has a lot of images and the purpose is "to present readers with a structured and meaningful collection of the media found here on Wikimedia Commons" (see Commons:Galleries). This gallery page does not meet these criteria. I have copied the text to Category:Wikimedia. As far as I know, there is not such thing as a Gallery DAB. JopkeB (talk) 06:34, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
- Delete Talk:Wikimedia and Delete Talk:Wikimedia (disambiguation). Also Delete Wikimedia after gazillions links are fixed (technically my bot can do it, but it's current approval doesn't include this task ...). We know that Wikimedia is important, no need for gazillions of redundant pages about it.
Not sure whether the disambig at Category:Wikimedia is good. Ideally, Category:Wikimedia should be deleted too in favor of Category:Wikimedia movement. So { {vd} } for Category:Wikimedia after links are fixed.Taylor 49 (talk) 11:17, 13 September 2024 (UTC)- For your information: Category:Wikimedia had a redirect to Category:Wikimedia movement. I did not want to just delete the information in the gallery page and so I made this page the DAB. JopkeB (talk) 13:34, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
- @User:EugeneZelenko @User:Jameslwoodward @User:Krd: Category:Wikimedia is fixed. Two junk talk pages are deleted. Can I fix the links to Wikimedia with my bot making deletion possible? Taylor 49 (talk) 20:51, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
- For your information: Category:Wikimedia had a redirect to Category:Wikimedia movement. I did not want to just delete the information in the gallery page and so I made this page the DAB. JopkeB (talk) 13:34, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Didym as no permission (No permission since). The licence "Als Quellenanbabe bitte verbindlich zitieren: Land Tirol/Tiroler Kunstkataster" is now shown with a ciopy of the relevant document and in the exif data. NearEMPTiness (talk) 06:57, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
- In this context I think removing the Copyright Information in the Watermark might also be a Problem. Ailura (talk) 14:01, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Didym as no permission (No permission since). The licence "Als Quellenanbabe bitte verbindlich zitieren: Land Tirol/Tiroler Kunstkataster" is now shown with a copy of the relevant document and in the exif data. NearEMPTiness (talk) 06:59, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
- In this context I think removing the Copyright Information in the Watermark might also be a problem. Ailura (talk) 13:59, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
Copyrighted image, uploader is not the author 223.197.32.97 07:22, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
no permission, copyvio see metadata that state: Author Daniel Gouweleeuw Copyright holder All Rights Reserved DAGfotografie.nl Hoyanova (talk) 08:21, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, Daan Gouweleeuw is the Photographer. He made this picture for us? Thunderdre (talk) 17:23, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
Copyright? Is this single contribution of the user own work? Is it a modified version of the image given here? Wouter (talk) 08:48, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
copyvio no permission from given photographer see metadata - Author Linde Dorenbos Copyright holder Copyright 2023. All rights reserved. Hoyanova (talk) 10:07, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
- We have permission from Linde Dorenbos to use this foto as we paid her for her work. 185.65.52.99 15:21, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
- That doesn't mean you own the copyright. You need to contact COM:VRT and show them that you do. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:18, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
Copyrighted building (replacement of an old building that burned down in 1990s according to w:en:Basilan, so the architect isn't yet dead for more than 50 years). The Philippines does not provide Freedom of Panorama. All local uses of this image on enwiki have been replaced by three local images from Patrickroque01. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 10:20, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
It looks like this should become a Project page, not a Gallery page. But I do not know how to do that. JopkeB (talk) 10:23, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
Something went wrong with the scan, and the image is no longer available online on Wellcome. However, I wonder if this is still in copyright, one of the creators died 1985 (according to this). -- Deadstar (msg) 10:40, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
Suspected copyvio. The source website copyright policy states "Fair Use". Please check: https://kinmen.travel/zh-tw/copyright HH Wik (talk) 11:48, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
- [1] The source website copyright policy states GWOIA--葉又嘉 (talk) 03:47, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
These images do not come from a trusted source, so their authenticity is questionable.
Gikü (talk) 11:54, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
I made the sources for both coats of arms. These are either taken from the website of the two town halls or on Facebook, where I found them. They are not made by me and from my point of view there is no clear reason for their deletion. AlessioRO (talk) 14:59, 13 September 2024 (EET)
Not free image Librero2109 (talk) 13:23, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
- @Librero2109: Which are the reasons? --
Ωm3gД213 Desahoguense aquí 01:12, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
- Not PD-Chile Librero2109 (talk) 22:42, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
_(1).jpg){kind=link}
Violação de direitos autorais (o tema principal da fotografia é outra foto. Precisaríamos da autorização do fotógrafo original para carregá-la no Commons). Sintegrity (talk) 14:23, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
- Keep. Seems allowable under Brazilian freedom of panorama. IronGargoyle (talk) 15:14, 3 October 2024 (UTC)
possible copyvio https://www.bzbasel.ch/basel/basel-stadt/geburtstag-bernhard-christ-80-jahre-im-dienst-unserer-res-publica-ld.2384871 - we would need a COM:VRT permission to keep this M2k~dewiki (talk) 14:27, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
- Hi,
- This is a photo tagged "ZVG" which means in German "zur Verfügung gestellt" (in English: given to the newspaper by the person in the photo - in this case Bernhard Christ - for free publication).
- Therefore, I used this photo to illustrate the Wikipedia article about Bernhard Christ.
- If you do not consent with this argument, there is no problem, as I will ask for another photo.
- Best regards,
- 84.72.20.208 17:23, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
- sorry - I forgot to log in: Uto (talk) 17:24, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
- @Uto "zur Verfügung gestellt" is probably not enough to assume that it was provided for all possible use. Whether we use this photo or a different one, the photographer will need to provide a permission via COM:VRT. Nakonana (talk) 12:29, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
- @Nakonana: Meanwhile I found out who took the photograph and he agreed to fill out the form to give his consent that the photo be published under the Commons License. He will do that soon after his vacation. Thank you for your understanding. Cheers, Uto (talk) 14:50, 25 September 2024 (UTC)
- @Uto "zur Verfügung gestellt" is probably not enough to assume that it was provided for all possible use. Whether we use this photo or a different one, the photographer will need to provide a permission via COM:VRT. Nakonana (talk) 12:29, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
- sorry - I forgot to log in: Uto (talk) 17:24, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Di (they-them) as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: Lonsdale is a British brand, and the UK has a very low threshold of originality. See COM:TOO UK. Yann (talk) 16:05, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
According to the order of the President of the Republic of Kazakhstan on the transition to the Latin alphabet, this armband is officially recognized and is worn on the arms of military personnel of the Military police Body. — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 2A03:32C0:1:7478:50EC:E6B6:9B29:5A3C (talk) 19:46, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
- Не надо здесь распространять ложную информацию. В Вооружённых силах Республики Казахстан - нет нарукавных знаков с текстом на латинице. Только на кириллице. Эта картинка в формате .png - чья-та личная фантазия. Я представил фото реального нарукавного знака изготовленного из ткани.
- Kalabaha1969 (talk) 07:28, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
The terms of use[2] clearly state « You can't use or redistribute these images on free stock photo websites or apps, [...] and you can't sell and/or redistribute these images as stock photography». This clause doesn't comply with the licensing policy. Also is no clear the photographer had the right to reproduce these miniatures. Günther Frager (talk) 19:35, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
- Oh – then it is not just the copyright in the miniatures, but also the copyright in the photo. Gnom (talk) 05:29, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
COM:FOP. 186.172.252.6 19:42, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
- Keep Indeed. Per COM:FOP Peru: Resolutions No 0372-2006-TPI-INDECOPI and 0760-2010-TPI-INDECOPI (El Comercio v APSAV) specifies the situations in which the work may be legitimately reproduced for acts of exhibition. A "public place" (like MVCS: "bien de dominio público", with exceptions for "dominio privado estatal", see Works by the Peruvian Government)[29151/1991, updated in D.S. 008-2021-VIVIENDA Art. 3.3.2][46] is an internal or external location that is permanently available to the public including museums. (Bolding added). -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:29, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
not own work, probably copyrighted Bultro (talk) 23:07, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
