Commons:Deletion requests/2024/09/14

13 September 2024

15 September 2024

Deletion requests on 14 September 2024

September 14

File:China-resources-enterprise-SVG.svg

The logo is not copyrightable in the United States, but is copyrightable in its country of origin (China), because logos that use traditional Chinese characters are considered copyrightable. Astrinko (talk) 01:48, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Menino do Drone.jpg

Own work?! Mentiroso! 186.175.210.225 02:48, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Um projeto autoral com registro e produção brasileira. 2804:2CAC:FFFF:F900:5CFB:8194:A65:FC89 19:20, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:People of Kazakhstan in Zailiysky Ala-Tau mountains.png

I highly doubt that the uploader, who appears to be Southeast Asian from the bio they give on their user page, owns this photograph that they themself list as having been created on 4 August 1969. The actual source is probably not listed and this is very likely not their own work. Yue🌙 04:57, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:הלוגו של הליגה השלישית באיטליה 2023-2024.jpg

He breaks the rules Liadtalker 1234 (talk) 05:14, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The C is quite stylized so indeed likely above COM:TOO Italy. Jonteemil (talk) 17:28, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Edmond Sergent. Photograph by Genia Reinberg. Wellcome V0028022.jpg

This file should be deleted because the author-photographer (Genia Reinberg) died less than 70 years ago. Trauenbaum (talk) 06:28, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We have it here under a CC license, not as PD. Is there a reason to think the license is invalid? - Jmabel ! talk 08:51, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Per this press release, Wellcome Images, where this comes from, released loads of images under that CC license in 2014 (which were then mass-imported into Wikimedia Commons). In Category:Portraits in the Wellcome Collection, you will find many old images, like File:A bed-ridden man, with deformed feet and hands. Line engravi Wellcome V0010497.jpg from 1620, with that license. And every time I've looked one of those images up on the Wellcome site, they now claim that it is in the public domain (for the Sergent photo as well). Conclusion: That CC license under which they released their images in 2014 was not based on any rights they had to the images themselves and is not valid for them. They might have intended to release their scans (as opposed to the original images) under that license. Anyway, it's not there anymore.

Wellcome Images with a dubious license tag were deleted before, compare Commons:Deletion requests/File:A monster spewing out the word "Alcohol" is attacked with a Wellcome L0038321.jpg. In the Sergent photo case, that the photographer Genia Reinberg died in 1968 was not readily available knowledge until Trauenbaum figured it out in French archival records (which are now available online), so people might have had the impression that she died over 70 years ago. --Rosenzweig τ 11:44, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a verifiable source for the statement that Génia Reinberg the photographer died in 1968? BNF only has "18.." to "19..", Musée d'Orsay has no dates, The National Portrait Gallery has not dates. I'm finding evidence of Reinberg (or at least Photo Studio Génia Reinberg ) being active as late as c.1930 (or more definitively October 1928). — Tcr25 (talk) 16:03, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikidata d:Q121072352 or directly [1] (page 8 of 21, under her birth name Guittel Gourfinkel, which may explain why it is a bit hard to find). --Rosenzweig τ 16:11, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that name change is not obvious and makes it hard to track down... —Tcr25 (talk) 23:53, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So this will be out of copyright in France 1 January 2039; for the U.S. we would need a publication date, and if that is any later than 1933 (which it almost certainly is) this will be copyrighted in the U.S. until the January following 95 years after that, imaginably as late as 2060 or so. - Jmabel ! talk 12:35, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

According to my research, she was active as an artist-photographer from 1916 to 1935. While I couldn’t find much information, I did come across some memoirs from her son, Alain Reinberg (Des êtres sans importance, 2013). In them, he mentioned that she was a portrait photographer who developed her talent and practiced photography with his help, as he often served as her model. This is evidenced by this portrait from 1933 (ENTHOUSIASME), published in 1934 in La Photo pour tous. --Trauenbaum (talk) 08:49, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If her professional career ended in 1935, would people consider it safe to say "undelete in 2041"? - Jmabel ! talk 19:08, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why 2041? If you mean the URAA, that would be 1935 + 95 + 1 = 2031. So URAA should not be a problem unless there is reason to think that the Sergent photo was first published later than 1943 (since the French copyright will expire on January 1, 2039 and 1943 + 95 + 1 = 2039). --Rosenzweig τ 19:43, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry did the math wrong. So barring delayed publication, French copyright will be the later to expire: 1 January 2039. - Jmabel ! talk 20:22, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I’ve just found a photograph of Edmond Sergent taken by Genia Reinberg and published in 1937 in Le Monde colonial illustré : revue mensuelle, commerciale, économique, financière et de défense des intérêts coloniaux. This discovery may be useful in reconsidering the year in which the photograph enters the public domain. We could approximate the date as circa 1936 (Summary), since the photograph would have been taken before the publication date of the magazine. --Trauenbaum (talk) 10:45, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Znak-rublya-semifinal-12.png

Likely copyrighted in Russia. COM:TOO Russia states that "simple creative works" are copyrightable. The section above that deals with currency specifically (COM:CUR Russia) states that while currency and currency symbols aren't copyrighted, drafts for these are. ReneeWrites (talk) 08:38, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Aroma Beach Tamaraw Statue.jpg

Violation of sculptor's copyright. Works of unknown authorship are still copyrightable. As the Philippines does not provide Freedom of Panorama, this commercially-licensed image is an infringement. The work dates to 2019 as claimed by the description. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 10:10, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Red Ensign of Nigeria (1952-1960).svg

This file has been superseded by a better one, so I recommend deleting it quickly. 反共抗獨光復民國 (talk) 11:22, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Red Ensign of Nigeria (1914-1952).svg

This file has been superseded by a better one, so I recommend deleting it quickly. 反共抗獨光復民國 (talk) 11:24, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:4Y1A1933 (15728905280).jpg

The file is a derivative work of Valon huone, a 1992 sculpture by Irma Laukkanen (b. 1958, Q16982646), located in Kuhmo, Finland. The author of the original work (the sculpture) is still living, so it is still under copyright and thus not in public domain. Freedom of panorama is for buildings only in Finland. Apalsola ^{t • c} 12:50, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom --Pitke (talk) 22:47, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Kekkosteiden muistomerkki.jpg

The file is a derivative work of Kekkosteiden muistomerkki, a 1990 sculpture by Matti Hynynen, located in Kuhmo, Finland. The original work (the sculpture) is still under copyright and thus not in public domain. Freedom of panorama is for buildings only in Finland. Apalsola ^{t • c} 12:58, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is little information (if any) about the sculptor on the Net (another Matti Hynynen is a separate, younger sculptor), but even if Hynynen died five years before the publishing of this work in 1990, the sculpture would only enter PD in 2055. --Pitke (talk) 22:45, 17 November 2024 (UTC)=== Images of works by Risto Saalasti in Kuhmo ===[reply]

The following photographs are derivative works of sculptures by Risto Saalasti (1937–2024, Q98555900), located in Kuhmo, Finland:

File:Laukunkantaja patsas.jpg – Laukunkantajan patsas (1979)
File:Tervansoutaja patsas.jpg – Tervansoutajan patsas (1973)

The original works (the sculptures) are still under copyright and thus not in public domain until 2095-01-01. Freedom of panorama is for buildings only in Finland. ––Apalsola ^{t • c} 13:25, 14 September 2024 (UTC) –– (fix) Apalsola ^{t • c} 13:31, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The photographs have been uploaded to the Finnish Wikipedia as follows:

––Apalsola ^{t • c} 16:52, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --Pitke (talk) 22:47, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ziryab.jpg

Image is taken from some random blog, which obviously didn't make the picture. Google Lens also shows it being used many other places. Possibly copyrighted. HistoryofIran (talk) 14:44, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

They did make the picture, thats the main source of the picture haha. I contacted the owner (possibly copyrighted) for use and he accepted because it was for the wikipedia of Ziryab. AvidHistorian1 (talk) 21:41, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:AvidHistorian1, that's not an acceptable license for Commons. Have the owner contact COM:VRT to give permission for uses including commercial ones. Otherwise, Commons can't host this photo. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:35, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that's just a blatant lie. I also found this image from 2010, used by another person [2], that's 4 years before the blog used this image. And what are the chances that a random blogger is an incredibly skilled painter and uses those said paintings for their posts? Loads of paintings are used in that blog, all different artstyles (and some of which are well-known ones by other authors), you mean to tell me all those are theirs? HistoryofIran (talk) 22:57, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files uploaded by User:Shizuha

The information board depicted here says its text was authored in 1998, i.e. these files possibly violate the literary copyright. Yasu (talk) 15:02, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

著作権を侵害している可能性がある、とのことですが、該当の画像に使用されている文言について「文学的」だとする根拠をお教えいただけないでしょうか。なお、この場所を管理しているのは「快神社」であり、また、看板については、この場所を管理している氏子衆など看板に書かれている有志の方々などにより設置されています。--Shizuha (talk) 18:50, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

一体どの文書(?)の著作権を侵害しているというのか、御教示頂きたいです。これではどの作品の著作権を侵害しているのかが分かりません。 HWTOF (talk) 21:29, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The term "literary" here has much broader meaning than you may have imagined. Under the Japanese Copyright Act Article 10, copyrighted works include novels, scenarios, articles, lectures, and other literary works (as per Section 1); so in general any written works published within 70 years should be considered as copyright protected, unless they are merely articles that communicate nothing further than the facts (as stated in Section 2). Yasu (talk) 14:58, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

日本語圏の方みたいですので、返答は日本語でお願いします。で、記載されている文章が「70年以内に出版された著作物」である証明をお願いします。--Shizuha (talk) 20:22, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As mentioned in the first place, the text is supposed to be from the year of 1998 but, as per the policy, it is the uploader who must provide appropriate licensing information. So if you insist to keep the files, you have to prove the text is older than 70 years.

最初に「1998 年の文章である」と指摘していますが、そもそもコモンズの方針では、ファイルのライセンスに問題がないことを証明する義務は、そのファイルをアップロードした利用者にあるとされています。したがって、もしこれらのファイルの存続を主張されるのであれば、当該文章が 70 年より前に公表されたものであることを証明していただく必要があります。Yasu (talk) 15:02, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Commomsなので英語でかくぶんにはかまいませんが、結局のところあなたの意見は確信をついているように思えませんでしたので、もう少しここでのことがどのように適用されるのか、また、それを適用できるかについて教えていただきたい(ログインせずに書いてしまったので署名編集しました) --不確定要素 (talk) 22:21, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Photos of information boards are generally not OK to upload (unless the text is simple enough to be copyright-exempted). See Commons:Copyright rules by subject matter#Noticeboards and signs. Yasu (talk) 15:02, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

日本語でコミュニケーションしているんだから日本語で返事したらどうかな。ちと失礼なんじゃない？--Shizuha (talk) 12:01, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it is rude to talk in English to a user who says it is fine with them in English, in a discussion that started in English. If it is, then wouldn't it be also rude to comment in Japanese to an English request? Please also have in mind that, as Japanese-speaking admins at Commons are very few, the closing admin of this case would supposedly be a non Japanese speaker so I would like to talk in English as long as the situation permits. In any case, let me remind you that this is where we discuss whether the files should be deleted (not whether a user is rude), and you have been requested to provide a rationale to keep the files. If you fail to do so, it should be regarded that we have reached consensus to delete them.

英語で開始した議論において、「英語でかくぶんにはかまいません」とおっしゃっている方に対し英語で返答することが失礼であるとは考えていません。もしこれが失礼であるなら、そもそも英語の依頼文に対して日本語でコメントすることも失礼になるものと思います。なお、現在コモンズにおいて日本語を解する管理者はかなりの少数であり、本件に対処する管理者もおそらく日本語話者ではないと予想されることから、当方としては議論を円滑に進めるためなるべく英語を使用するのが望ましいと考えていますので、その点はご理解ください。いずれにしてもここは当該ファイルの削除について議論する場ですので、現在でも削除に反対されるのであれば、先に述べたとおり当該ファイルが削除されるべきでない根拠の提示をお願いします。ご提示がない場合は、依頼内容について争いがないものと解します。Yasu (talk) 14:58, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

現時点まで、依頼者が日本語圏の私達に日本語で明確な根拠と理由を明示してはいないと理解してよろしいでしょうか。なお、管理者が日本語話者ではないこととこの議論が日本語でなければならないこととは関連がありません。あとで英語でまとめて管理者に伝えればいいだけです。--Shizuha (talk) 13:56, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently you are aware that the files "depict the text written within 70 years" and "possibly violate copyright", and yet you still insist that I have to explain in Japanese merely because this request has been made in English? Of course you are free to reply in Japanese, but I don't think the whole discussion here should be made only in Japanese; whether the files should be deleted will be decided by an admin, not by ourselves. Now, please allow me to repeat myself: the burden of proof lies on the uploader or other person arguing for the files to be retained. So be warned that if you fail to show us the proof, it will be highly unlikely that the closing admin will decide to keep the files. For your reference, there has been a number of deletion requests that are related to information boards in Japan - please find a few of them in the Japanese text below - all of them closed as deleted.

「70年以内に出版された著作物」「著作権を侵害している可能性がある」と指摘されていることをすでにご承知であり、かつ当方からも「1998 年の文章である」と直接お伝えしている状況で、さらに重ねて「日本語で明確な根拠と理由を明示」する必要性があるとは思われません。また、英語の削除依頼に対して日本語で返信されるのはご自由ですが、この議論自体が「日本語でなければならない」理由もありません。なんとなれば、最終的に削除するか否かの判断をするのは管理者であり、現在議論をしている利用者の間で結論を出して「あとで英語でまとめて管理者に伝え」るというわけにはいかないからです。そして、繰り返しになりますが、ファイルに問題がないことを証明する義務はファイルの存続を主張する側にあります。これはコモンズの方針で決まっていることですので、当方から指摘した問題点を解決できる根拠をご提示いただけない限り、管理者が存続の判断を下す可能性はきわめて低いであろうと考えられます。最後にご参考まで、本件と類似した削除依頼案件として、当方が関わったものだけでも Commons:Deletion requests/File:六部尊説明碑.JPG、Commons:Deletion requests/File:渋谷・千代田稲荷神社IMG 8527.jpg、Commons:Deletion requests/File:ロケット発祥の地記念碑.jpg、Commons:Deletion requests/File:六つ塚.JPG、Commons:Deletion requests/File:豊泉寺・豊泉寺記念碑2.jpg など多数の先例があり、そしてそのいずれも削除という結果になっていることもお伝えしておきます。Yasu (talk) 14:58, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files in public domain post-1945

Post-1945 images (photos/film stills) from India, which were certainly still in copyright in India at the URAA cut-off date of 1996. Therefore their US term was extended until 95 years after their first publication, at present they continue to be under copyright in the US.

GaiusAugustine (talk) 13:41, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Akademikdanismanlik.jpg

There is no stated license at the source (could not find the image there either). Furthermore, the metadata has a copyright notice to "Mint Images". This photo turns up on many stock photo sites like Alamy and shutterstock, also credited to Mint Images. Since this is a previously published work, policy requires that the copyright owner use the COM:VRT process to confirm the license. User accounts are essentially anonymous, so can't be used to license previously-published works. Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:20, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Blanton Loggia.jpg

Possibly NFC, DW, no FoP. Image contains a mural painting by Carmen Herrera (Verde, que te quiero verde, 2020/2023), photographed in the United States (no freedom of panorama). The owner of the work claims that it is in copyright, but I have to wonder as to whether the design of this mural would pass the threshold of originality requirements for copyright in the U.S. given its visual make-up - it's a series of monochrome triangles and squares. Personally I think it probably reaches the required standard based on arrangement, but I'm no expert. Defer to more informed folks. 19h00s (talk) 17:41, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand this deletion request; exactly why do you think it should be deleted? Stevensaylor (talk) 17:51, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The museum claims that the painting in this image is copyrighted. If it is indeed copyrighted, images of the painting cannot be uploaded to Commons, as the United States does not have freedom of panorama (the legal principle that allows for people to publish images of copyrighted artwork permanently installed in public). --19h00s (talk) 18:16, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps pertinent: 1) Photo shows only a detail of the mural, which extends far beyond photo frame to the right; 2) The truncation, angle of the shot, and resolution make the image useless for making copies of the actual work of art; 3) This is a architectural photo of the exterior loggia of the museum, which along with the ceiling, floor, and columns, must necessarily show a portion of the mural. Stevensaylor (talk) 03:28, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Logo-VareshGold.png

Logo, COM:TOO Iran HeminKurdistan (talk) 18:07, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ottoman-Hungarian Wars jpg.jpg

Header combined image does not appear to be actual, historical art indexed to any concrete event produced by a historically located subject. In other words, it appears to be synthetic, automated computer output with no link, location, or responsibility to the topic. Use of such images presents several key issues as I see it: 1. they are not representations, however subjective, removed in time, fabricated, epistemologically unstable etc - rather, they are something like thrice removed "ideas" of what representations of things *like* the events they depict 'look like' in both form and content. 2. Consequently, they possess no historical content, indexicality, or information. They say nothing - or worse than nothing, they say something completely fake, with no relationship to ontic reality, actual phenomena, historical fact, style, etc etc. They cannot be affirmed or contested, debated or interrogated. 3. They cannot be attributed, no one is answerable to or for or about them - there is no responsibility in a literal and figurative sense. 4. All of the other box standard issues, e.g. private profit from public goods, copyright violation, etc.

Accordingly, per Wikimedia Commons policy, machine fabricated (aka misnomer "artificial intelligence") images such as this, that does not identify itself as such, and does not 'realistically useful for an educational purpose' are valid candidates for deletion. Wosewoes (talk) 20:25, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Suscribo todo lo de arriba. Delete. 186.173.73.155 03:15, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All of these arts are in the public domain, meaning you can use them however you want. Not a reason to remove. Incall ^talk 13:54, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:من المسؤال.jpg

صورة ليست لها اهمية Mohammed Qays (talk) 20:47, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files uploaded by User1648 (talk · contribs)

Copyvio if deemed above COM:TOO Germany.

Jonteemil (talk) 20:47, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:...عبدالله.jpg

صورة لها حقوق Mohammed Qays (talk) 20:49, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Entrance to the Dallas Museum of Art in Dallas, Texas LCCN2014633039.tif

Copyright violation. No freedom of panorama in the United States. Nv8200p (talk) 23:11, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. After searching copyright records, I do not see any evidence that this 1960 work was renewed. This should be kept per {{PD-US-not renewed}}. IronGargoyle (talk) 22:34, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]