Wikimedia Commons

Commons:Deletion requests/2024/11/20

< Commons:Deletion requests | 2024/11
19 November 2024
21 November 2024
Deletion requests on 20 November 2024

November 20

edit

File:Elecciones al Parlamento Europeo de 2024 (España).svg

edit

Wrong data at least for the province Gipuzkoa --Iñaki LL (talk) 10:16, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:STEINERT EddyC.jpg

edit

Copyright holder: Sascha Fiedler 82.83.49.131 10:46, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The photo was taken by the named person as part of a STEINERT project and the rights have been granted to STEINERT. Should the EXIF data be adjusted accordingly? STEINERTglobal (talk) 15:04, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Accademia Tedesca Roma Villa Massimo, Elisabeth Wolken 1980.tif

edit

Photo published in Italy in 1980. It is currently in the public domain in its country of origin, but it was not in 1996 at URAA time. Thus it is still protected by copyright in the US. Following PCP we cannot keep it. Günther Frager (talk) 11:58, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Files uploaded by Managementgaming (talk · contribs)

edit

Selfies and a family photo, two of which had been published online credited to the subject (https://metro.co.uk/2021/01/14/what-its-like-to-live-with-klinefelter-syndrome-13902438/). No evidence of permission for upload here.

Belbury (talk) 12:56, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Or Shahaf 1.jpg

edit

Copyvio: https://haipo.co.il/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/Haipo-news-of-Haifa-Or-Shahaf-090521-2-scaled.jpeg Kershatz (talk) 13:59, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Formatted. —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 17:28, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ecusson mission RAMSES (ESA).png

edit

The image is under ESA Standard Licence, per source; it's not compatible with commons. Artem.G (talk) 14:21, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files uploaded by Logox44 (talk · contribs)

edit

unlikely to be own work

Didym (talk) 14:29, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is my own work (all). Logox44 (talk) 16:46, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Great, Mr. Loredana. Why are the EXIFs and sizes so different from one another? You had a Canon EOS 5D Mark IV in March 2018, but you used it only once in this group of photographs. How come? OK, so sometimes you had only your cellphone with you, but why do some of these EXIFs show neither the Canon nor the cellphone? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:00, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Abidin and Jocklin during flight training in the United Kingdom.jpg

edit

How can this be in PD if date and author are unknown? P 1 9 9  ✉ 14:30, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for the lack of detail, this is quite an old upload from me. I am only aware from the sources that he was training in the UK in 1966 and around 14 August 1967. Pangalau (talk) 15:40, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  Comment Per the source (and Pangalau's comment), the photo would have to date to 1966 or 1967; however the source credits Kementerian Pertahanan (Ministry of Defense) for the photos. Per COM:NOP Indonesia, since a state agency distributed the photos, {{PD-IDGov}} could apply. I missed that this is from Brunei; {{PD-Brunei}} for government works requires 75 years from creation (or 50 years from first publication), which this wouldn't meet, unless the images were published around the time they were taken. If there is reason to believe a British military photographer took the photos, {{PD-UKGov}} could apply (assuming the photos were printed around the time they were taken). Not sure if there are any URAA concerns about possible US copyright issues. —Tcr25 (talk) 16:32, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree to the possibility that a British military personnel took this photograph in the UK. Which would fall under UK copyrights. Pangalau (talk) 04:21, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Pushkar-1575.jpg

edit

Out of scope per "For example, the fact that an unused blurred photograph could theoretically be used to illustrate an article on "Common mistakes in photography" does not mean that we should keep all blurred photographs." Additionally, COM:SPAM is applicable: The image is also out of scope because it's part of a "private image collections, e.g. private party photos, photos of yourself and your friends, your collection of holiday snaps and so on. There are plenty of other projects on the Internet you can use for such a purpose, such as Flickr. Such private image collections do not become educational even if displayed as a gallery on a user page on Commons or elsewhere." (cf. file history) Furthermore, I harbor doubts that the advertisement is sufficiently De minimis, otherwise, it would be against rules of COM: FOP India. Grand-Duc (talk) 15:36, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • The lights are cool to look at, and documentation of that scene doesn't require this to be a high-quality photo, though my observation is that you seem to be trying to get rid of every photo taken by this user, regardless of subject or potential use. I'd keep it unless there's a copyright problem in relation to the ad. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:11, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ikan Kekek, your notion of me apparently trying "to get rid of every photo taken by this user, regardless of subject or potential use" looks like a borderline personal attack, violating COM:AGF. Imagine an excessively prolific contributor, who first floods Commons with the content of his iPhone and/or cloud storage (this info is gained from a file naming patterns combined with EXIF and location info), and then floods the renaming request queue, then it's easy to encounter him through someone's own watchlist (at least, when you have the related categories on it). If you take the renaming business at least somewhat seriously, then you should think of other relevant project policies when you open an image (copyright and scope first and foremost). So, the amount of DR that I opened are IMHO not outstanding, among the dozens renaming requests I processed today, only a few resulted in DR. That is far far away from a try to get rid of these contributions in total. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 01:11, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
OK, that's how it seemed to me, as it's looked like a pattern of nominating images that are not so bad they couldn't be useful, particularly if they are unique on Commons in illustrating a particular motif, and I don't see the point in hiding images that are plausibly useful. I'm happy to take accept your explanation and take your word for it that you didn't nominate many of their (likely her, I think, based on username) photos, though. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:39, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I think you may believe in good faith that photos that are not precisely named and categorized should be deleted, because to my understanding, you think that makes the photos unusable. So it's not like I think you are deliberately trying to damage the site, which is what "bad faith" would mean. I just don't agree with a lot of what I've seen of your approach. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:43, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]


This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:State of Palestine.png

edit

I uploaded it by mistake Dictatorship 99 (talk) 23:34, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 06:55, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:State of Palestine.png

edit

Duplicate of File:Flag of Palestine.svg. Fry1989 eh? 15:38, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I believe policy is to generally not delete PNGs that have SVG versions available, unless the PNGs are exceptionally low-quality, but to instead tag them with {{Vector version available}}. See COM:Redundant. I don't know if I'm out of date, though. – BMacZero (🗩) 17:06, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I thought so, but a lot of them seem to get deleted per nom. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:11, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  Weak keep I think it is ok here to keep a high quality PNG version of vector graphics and tag it with Template:Vector version available although I can't find the exact policy Atomicdragon136 (talk) 03:31, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files uploaded by Michaelpewny (talk · contribs)

edit

Missing information on author and source. Also unlikely to be own work.

Didym (talk) 20:18, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not off all have missing descriptions or other infos, so I cannot understand the cause of deleting. ---- K@rl (talk) Diskussion 15:00, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Some files indicate an author, but the uploader claims to be the photographer and the subject, which is almost impossible. --Didym (talk) 15:56, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, please wsit. All Pict last 20 Years made my wife who died in 2018. Old pict from my Dad I got owned After he died in 2018, thanks Michsel — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michaelpewny (talk • contribs) 17:56, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For all deletion requests regarding this user: Let's give him time to add the info he refers to in a comment above this (which should be moved here) that all the photos that are not by him are by his late wife and father. Though User:Michaelpewny, you need to contact COM:VRT to talk to them about that. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:21, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
All the pictures have now a description and the other values. The source of all these photos is Susanne Pewny, which is died in 2018. Now the rights held her widower Michael Pewny. ---- K@rl (talk) Diskussion 11:52, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Very good. User:Michaelpewny, please also contact COM:VRT about the photos that were already deleted in the nomination by User:Didym below that was closed by User:Krd. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:35, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So Susanne Pewny is the photographer and also visible on some of the photos taken by her? Very unlikely. --Didym (talk) 22:41, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Files uploaded by Michaelpewny (talk · contribs)

edit

Missing information on author and source. Also unlikely to be own work.

Didym (talk) 15:59, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 06:05, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Rajput wemen enjoying nights with Mughal King.jpg

edit

Copyright issues. Image copied from https://www.abplive.com/lifestyle/mughal-hindu-queens-interesting-facts-history-in-hindi-2209894 NXcrypto (talk) 16:01, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:EMB244 Kwiatek kukurydzy JOOP 20x17 mm. Eksponat Muzeum Miniaturowej Sztuki Profesjonalnej Henryk Jan Dominiak w Tychach.jpg

edit

Błędna nazwa Muzeum Miniaturowej Sztuki Profesjonalnej Henryk Jan Dominiak w Tychach 2 (talk) 16:16, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ma błędną nazwę, powinna być: EMB244 Stylizowany chaber JOOP! 20x17 mm. Eksponat Muzeum Miniaturowej Sztuki Profesjonalnej Henryk Jan Dominiak w Tychach.jpg Muzeum Miniaturowej Sztuki Profesjonalnej Henryk Jan Dominiak w Tychach 2 (talk) 19:01, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Logo Stylish.png

edit

Obviously not own work, it came from the developer's website. But is this logo PD? I don't think so, it probably meets threshold of originality. Atomicdragon136 (talk) 16:17, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The uploader's username suggests they might actually be the developer and is own work. However, it seems this is more used for self promotion. It is currently used for a draft article on Persian Wikipedia that is currently unsourced. Atomicdragon136 (talk) 16:20, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Sheikh Muhammad Jamiu Shamsudeen E-Islam R.T.A.png

edit

Is it PD? 200.39.139.24 16:18, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Si no, borrar talk page tb. 200.39.139.24 14:53, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Planning the Tuolumne Experience Alternative- 3 Minimum Activities & Services (43b3472f-e259-4832-8e3a-2161b551efd1).tif

edit

Date was formatted incorrectly and is actually 1995 (not pre-1929), author is not an NPS employee (Cal Poly Pomona graduate program). – BMacZero (🗩) 16:35, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Complete list of affected files:

– BMacZero (🗩) 16:49, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files in Category:Wat Umong Suan Phutthatham

edit

COM:SPAM: out of scope, useless vacation snapshots, often also really bad quality (blurred).

Grand-Duc (talk) 17:06, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Wat Umong Suan Phutthatham-0190.jpg kinda looking good. modern_primat ඞඞඞ ----TALK 18:49, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed.   Keep that one, though with a category of chicken added, and it's probably fine to   Delete the rest. Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:28, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
These two File:Wat Umong Suan Phutthatham-0209.jpg and File:Wat Umong Suan Phutthatham-0207.jpg have a chicken climbing which gives insight about the temple too. I think they should be kept. Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (please tag me) 19:57, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
True. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:06, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  Delete the blurry ones and   Keep the quality pictures. Atomicdragon136 (talk) 03:36, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]


File:Jaguar-Logo.svg and File:Jaguar 2024.svg

edit

This file was initially tagged by DeFacto as Copyvio (Copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: Every page on jaguar.com is marked © JAGUAR LAND ROVER LIMITED 2024 and see COM:TOO United Kingdom which says "Not OK for most logos. The level of originality required for copyright protection in the United Kingdom is very low."|source=https://www.jaguar.com/index.html. Not sure this is above the post-Sheridan threshold, opinions? —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 17:34, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]


  Keep Generic geometric text wordmark only, no complex original shapes. EmpAhmadK (talk) 02:29, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 17:36, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Keep This is a very simple text logo. Unless there's significant commentary about the artistic purposes of the typeface, this is not be subject to TOO-UK, which in turn "below threshold of originality" required for copyright protection even for the UK themselves where the threshold is very low. Yayan550 (talk) 21:23, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Yayan550, search for 'Jaguar "Exuberant" font' and I think you will find that there is "significant commentary about the artistic purposes of the typeface". -- DeFacto (talk). 10:01, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Keep This is a very simple text logo. JukoFF (talk) 21:23, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Delete The example of an infringement given in COM:TOO UK is here. The finding on that was "[The defendants] submitted that the claimant can have no copyright in its EDGE logo because it is not original over the Franklin Gothic typeface. I do not accept this submission. The stretching of the font was combined with the distinctive slash and projection on the middle bar of the "E". What is required for artistic originality is the expenditure of more than negligible or trivial effort or relevant skill in the creation of the work: see Copinger and Skone James on Copyright 16th Ed at 3-130 and Ladbroke v. William Hill [1964] 1 WLR 273 at 287. The claimant's logo is original within this test." That seems to apply equally to this new Jaguar logo. It uses a new font designed especially for it and with over-wide character spacing and a unique upper and lower case mix ("JaGUar").[1] This surely required artistic originality and more than negligible or trivial effort and certainly relevant skill, to create the work. -- DeFacto (talk). 09:48, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @DeFacto I would agree if Future and Ladbroke were good law. But they are not. In Sheridan, the Court of Appeal recognized that the old "skill and labour" test that those cases applied has been superseded by the new, "more demanding", "author’s own intellectual creation" test. (If Sheridan hadn't been decided, I would have deleted this file per your speedy instead of converting it to a DR :) ). —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 03:20, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Mdaniels5757, are you saying that COM:TOO UK is out of date? -- DeFacto (talk). 20:33, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @DeFacto I believe so. (I guess it's partially updated: it does mention Sheridan, but only in the context of digital reproductions of 2D works.) I'll post on COM:VPC: this issue could use more attention. —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 03:50, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Delete  – The summary and analysis of the THJ v Sheridan case indicate that the bar for originality threshold is still low, despite CJEU's test system being higher than the UK courts' "skill and labour" one. It further states how uncertain the UK's standards are heading to (scholarly article, blog post). The case applies to charts (and software), and the Court of Appeal decision applies to only England and Wales, which the Court represented. In other words, hasn't applied yet to Scotland or Northern Ireland. The logo itself may be original enough to the UK courts. Well, this matter hasn't yet been taken to a courthouse yet, but this is a logo, not a chart (the chart is still copyrighted, FWIW) or software. Well, the case might apply to other things, but what's "original" may still be up in the air. If EDGE logo may be still "original", then this logo may still be original, despite supposed supersedence. Furthermore, the Parliament might amend whatever it can see fit. —George Ho (talk) 06:22, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Keep This is a wordmark. There are no design elements in this logo so it should be under the threshold of originality. Nylix4488 (talk) 11:36, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    As said above, the design elements are that it is a new font with unique character spacing and case mixing. -- DeFacto (talk). 21:38, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Portrait of a young man.jpg

edit

This file was initially tagged by Jan Myšák as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: https://www.okman.com/artwork. @Willkinsart: Did you personally take this photograph? And do you have the copyright for the sculpture? —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 17:38, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:ZEITGEIST.jpg

edit

This file was initially tagged by Jan Myšák as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: https://www.okman.com/artwork. @Willkinsart: Did you personally take this photograph? And do you have the copyright for the sculpture? —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 17:39, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Flag of Nunavut.svg

edit

Canadian flag, possibly still under Crown Copyright. Abzeronow (talk) 19:36, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It occurred to me that the flag may be PD if the inukshuk design in it was prevously public domain, since everything else in the flag is below Threshold of Originality for Canada.
However, I just found this news article: https://nunatsiaq.com/stories/article/who_can_protect_the_inukshuk_maybe_canada/ which says "Flags and coats-of-arms are protected, because trademarks [held by private businesses], for example, can’t include official symbols related to federal and provincial governments. This protects the inukshuk emblem on Nunavut’s new flag." Sounds copyrighted to me. - Intervex (talk) 23:19, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That said, the article is chiefly about how difficult it is to copyright inuksuit: "under existing Canadian law, it may be difficult to protect traditional symbols like the inukshuk." - it may still be the case that the inukshuk design in the Nunavut flag has been considered PD. It does strike me as notable that the Nunavut government website goes out of its way to say the coat of arms & mace are copyrighted, but has no such message about the flag (compare https://assembly.nu.ca/about-legislative-assembly/flag-nunavut to https://assembly.nu.ca/about-legislative-assembly/coat-arms-nunavut). I'm uncertain. Intervex (talk) 00:26, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Update: I emailed the Department of Canadian Heritage of the Government of Canada inquiring about the copyright status of the flag. The person responding told me that the flag is a registered protected trademark, but he does not know about the copyright status. So he referred me to the relevant person in the Government of Nunavut, who I then emailed and got an autoresponse saying she's on leave and to contact Person #3. I emailed Person #3 and got another autoresponse. 🙃 I'll wait a bit to see if either responds. Intervex (talk) 22:57, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
At least you got an autoresponse. Usually all I get is silence. I see that the Commissioner's office says the same about the mace and COA but nothing about the flag, https://www.commissioner.gov.nu.ca/en/symbols.pdf CambridgeBayWeather Talk 15:22, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  Keep. Still no response to my emails. But since you've pointed out the Commissioner's office *also* has a noticeable lack of copyright notice on the flag, I think this is enough for me to convince me that the Nunavut Government is treating the flag as PD. Rereading the Nunatsiaq article I posted earlier, I think that first quote I shared saying the inukshuk emblem is now protected is about trademark law, rather than copyright law. The Nunatsiaq article also says "Another major hurdle to the copyrighting of a traditional symbol such as the inukshuk is that no single individual can claim ownership of it" - in order for copyright to be granted, there needs to be a clear owner of the IP. It seems that inuksuit, being considered traditional art, have been considered copyright-ineligible in Canadian law. Intervex (talk) 21:09, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  Keep for now but if they stated the flag is copyrighted, we might had to reupload a copyright-free version of the file. SpinnerLaserzthe2nd (talk) 22:42, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I gonna had to ping @CambridgeBayWeather: because he lives in that territory and he might had his words on the case. SpinnerLaserzthe2nd (talk) 22:45, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can't really add anything. CambridgeBayWeather Talk 15:23, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Pu Xixiu.jpg

edit

This is public domain in China, but given that it was created in 1951, probably not public domain in the United States Mrfoogles (talk) 23:30, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

La foto tiene 73 años. Casi más viejo que algunos wiquipedistas. Por qué no la dejamos en paz? 200.39.139.24 15:00, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/2024/11/20&oldid=965603913"