Commons:Deletion requests/2024/09/12

11 September 2024

13 September 2024

Deletion requests on 12 September 2024

September 12

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:Intertoto.svg

Looks like the Italian wiki user copied it from http://www.juventus.com/media/images/internal-pages-images/coppa%20intertoto.jpg Ytoyoda (talk) 17:01, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 09:38, 20 June 2020 (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:Intertoto.svg

In the image, I can say that it comes from this Italian Wikipedia account https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Intertoto.svg where it indicates that the drawing comes from the source http://www.juventus.com/media/images/internal-pages-images/coppa%20intertoto.jpg , also use the image on other wikipedia pages in Italian language, it would not be plagiarism but an inspiration, I hope you understand it thanks--LIBRE CONOCIMIENTO (talk) 23:09, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: already deleted. (non-admin closure) --Mdaniels5757 (talk) 18:29, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:Intertoto.svg

Very likely it is hasn't a compatible license; even if it really is "own work", the license applied is that of the logo. Stego (talk) 01:19, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's not exactly the cup (which is visible at File:Juventus FC - Coppa Intertoto UEFA 1999.jpg, and might be have copyright issues), but a version created by MacMoreno based on the cup description. --Ruthven (msg) 07:33, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:"A Nautch Girl and Musicians," postcard, early 1900's.jpg

A postcard being published in the "earlier 1900's" does not imply that its author has been dead since 1954, nor that it was published before 1929. jlwoodwa (talk) 01:57, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It sure looks like it was. When do you think it would have been published, with that style and seemingly hand-colored? 19th-century wouldn't surprise me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:26, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I was basing this on the file's description ("A Nautch Girl and Musicians," a postcard, earlier 1900's), but it could very well be inaccurate. jlwoodwa (talk) 18:35, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"1900's" means "between 1900 and 1909". What makes you think that it doesn't imply that it was published before 1929 when it clearly states that it was published prior to the 1910s? Nakonana (talk) 01:02, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree with you. "Early 1900s" could mean anything from 1900 to at least some time in the teens. However, I don't think it could mean 1929, so we agree on that important point. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:29, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That would be "early 20th-century". The "1900s" limits it to 1900-1909, because anything past that would be "1910s" or "1920s". The "s" at the end usually references a decade. You wouldn't say that the "early 1920s" include "at least some time in the 1930s", right? "Early 1920s" clearly means something between 1920 and 1925 at the latest. The same is true for "early 1900s". Nakonana (talk) 22:32, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1900s can mean either a decade or a century. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:37, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Clearly {{PD-India-photo-1958}}. Publication date and author death date do not matter in this case. IronGargoyle (talk) 15:16, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This was a mural funded by the City Of Boston Mayor's Mural crew on a building that will be demolished imminently. Do we wish it to be lost to history? Who owns the rights in this case? It is a public art piece. Ethanmlong (talk) 13:42, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I visited this spot yesterday and this municipal mural has been removed as the building is about to be demolished. Ethanmlong (talk) 00:58, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Gonfalone Comune Montebuono.PNG

This file was initially tagged by Arrow303 as Dw no source since (dw no source since) Krd 04:30, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Turtle Cove mural - Roger Witter.jpg

No FoP for 2D works in the United States A1Cafel (talk) 04:30, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Did you read the actual license tags? It has nothing to do with FOP, it was made by someone employed by the Bureau of Land Management and uploaded by them. FunkMonk (talk) 07:10, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is painter Roger Witter a federal government officer? Krd 07:31, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

He was hired by the Bureau of Land Management to make it, the organisation that uploaded it to Flickr under that licence, and nothing indicates the employee has to specifically be "a federal government officer" for this tag to apply. FunkMonk (talk) 17:38, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

San Alfonso del Mar

Gallery doppelt; Category:San Alfonso del Mar ist besser AQ (talk) 05:36, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Game & Watch Collection cartridge.jpg

Probably exceeded COM:TOO A1Cafel (talk) 06:18, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep no copyright The New Foxy (talk) 06:33, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files in Category:Diego Rivera & Frida Kahlo Studio

I am afraid but we will have to delete these photos because they depict protected artworks and photographs displayed in a private museum, where freedom of panorama does not apply.

Gnom (talk) 06:48, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The Museo Casa Estudio Diego Rivera y Frida Kahlo is a government run museum, which means these should be allowable under Mexico's liberal freedom of panorama law (see COM:FOP Mexico). IronGargoyle (talk) 22:32, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The museum is not a lugar publico (public place), as it charges a fee to enter. Gnom (talk) 07:15, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I do not see evidence there that fee charging restricts something from being a public place. One of the points includes "every kind of building used for education" (emphasis mine) which a museum would qualify as. While COM:FOP Mexico notes that some government places (like train stations) restrict photography, this sounds very much like a non-copyright restriction. IronGargoyle (talk) 12:18, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A museum, albeit public, is not a lugar publico within the meaning of the Mexican copyright act. You are quoting from the definition in the Mexican telecommunications act, which does not apply to copyright law. Gnom (talk) 15:36, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You offer no evidence that "lugar publico" is defined differently in Mexican copyright law vs Mexican telecommunications law and it would be a very unusual case if it was. Beyond that, COM:FOP Mexico says that "Government-owned places...have no restrictions against freedom of panorama." before the telecommunications law is even brought up as an extra bit of information. IronGargoyle (talk) 14:41, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A lugar publico is a place that can be freely accessed by anyone. Lacking any better sources, this is how we interpret this term all across Commons. This requirement is not fulfilled for museums that charge an entrance fee. Gnom (talk) 14:54, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No this is absolutely not "how we interpret this term all across Commons"; that's absurd. "Lacking any better sources" is the phrase to note in your reply, as you continue to lack sources. US law for example treats public places very broadly, including places which charge admission and it seems clear from the plain wording of Commons policy that Mexico does the same. I think you are overgeneralizing from other countries which follow a more restrictive interpretation of public places. IronGargoyle (talk) 15:31, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hm, I don't think we can use the United States as a reference point here, because US FOP only applies to architecture in the first place, and not to artworks of any kind (not even those displayed outside). Gnom (talk) 10:10, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The objects protected by US FoP are different, but public place is still a relevant consideration; read the policy and law please. That is not the point I was trying to make though. I was just using the US as an example that shows different countries use different standards for what is a public place. You seem to think there is a Commons-wide rule for what is a public place based on whatever body of law you happen to be most familiar with. IronGargoyle (talk) 15:13, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am happy to be taught otherwise, but if what you are saying is correct, then we could suddenly upload all artworks displayed in all government-run museums within Mexico. That would be quite a deviation from the current practice on Commons, wouldn't it? I suppose what we need is a more reliable source of what is a public place under Mexican copyright law. Gnom (talk) 15:24, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I do not see any obvious cases from Mexican government museums at Category:Mexican FOP cases/deleted, so this is not a precedent-breaking issue. IronGargoyle (talk) 17:17, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To add on to my earlier comment, this case seems to agree with my take on the situation here. IronGargoyle (talk) 19:32, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Interior Puskesmas Pasar Minggu.jpg

Turns out, it's illegal to take a picture inside the clinic. Rantemario (talk) 07:12, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Upper Nikozi clinic (51570492457).jpg

Derivative work of copyrighted works Labrang (talk) 09:18, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Nothing sufficiently creative to be copyrighted. IronGargoyle (talk) 19:39, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Upper Nikozi clinic (51571980714).jpg

Derivative work of copyrighted works Labrang (talk) 09:19, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Nothing sufficiently creative to be copyrighted. IronGargoyle (talk) 19:40, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Upper Nikozi clinic (51571298406).jpg

Derivative work of copyrighted works Labrang (talk) 09:19, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:RuthSelfPortrait.png

If it's a self-portrait by the late Ruth Rogers-Altmann, who died in 2015, a permission by her (resp. her heirs) is required and it's not "own work" by uploader. -- Túrelio (talk) 09:20, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Could be {{PD-US-no notice}} or {{PD-US-not renewed}}. Yann (talk) 22:58, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Upper Nikozi clinic (51571298231).jpg

Pictures random people, random cars, no object of interest in image, also not the claimed clinic. No particular value Labrang (talk) 09:20, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:BRI Manajemen Investasi.svg

Logo ini tidak sesuai dengan logo aslinya dari perusahaan PT BRI Manajemen Investasi 103.113.135.18 09:38, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It seems that the logo has been revised to match the original source (https://bri-mi.co.id/). So, the argument regarding it becomes moot and needs to be declined eventually. 2404:8000:1037:456:E81E:2678:53C4:3A22 10:17, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Pastoor van Arskerk Den Haag (1.1).jpg

Scan from a book or other publication (see EXIF). As it's an aerial image, it's highly unlikely that the uploader has made this photo themself. Spinster (talk) 09:48, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Photo by Leuk2 1970-71, from a gallery of a residential tower (see Google Maps). 13:53, 22 September 2024 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leuk2 (talk • contribs) 11:58, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Photographer: Arnulf Lüchinger (=Leuk2), see book "Strukturalismus in Architektur und Städtebau", page 143. 12:30, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As photographer and uploader seem to be identical, this file can be kept. Duplicate version (the other file) can be deleted. Vysotsky (talk) 15:46, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Pastoor van Arskerk Den Haag (01).jpg

Scan from a book or other publication (see EXIF). As it's an aerial image, it's highly unlikely that the uploader has made this photo themself. Spinster (talk) 09:48, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Photographer: Arnulf Lüchinger (=Leuk2), see book "Strukturalismus in Architektur und Städtebau", page 143. Photo from residential tower. 16:40, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Duplicate with this file. Vysotsky (talk) 15:42, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Pastoor van Arskerk Den Haag (02).jpg

Scan from a book or other publication (see EXIF). No source pointing towards which publication, and no evidence that the uploader is indeed the photographer. Spinster (talk) 09:49, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See in book "Strukturalismus in Architektur und Städtebau" by User:Leuk2, on page 143, about photo on page 109-7. 14:36, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

Photographer: Arnulf Lüchinger (=Leuk2) 12:55, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Protest Tbilisi 21 April 2024 (53987798696).jpg

Copyrighted derivated is still visible in history - meanwhile, the blurred part to circumvent copyrights takes away the entire [political] message of the banner. This is useless crap this way. Labrang (talk) 10:20, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Wondering whether two users are competing on who got the better photo of the protest. See: Commons:Deletion requests/File:2024 Georgian Protests, April 28 (3).jpg. Nakonana (talk) 01:11, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, both photos are from the same photographer (and that's me all right) - see Flickr source.

Uploader of the photo from this nomination User:A1Cafel first nominated for deletion File:2024 Georgian Protests, April 28 (3).jpg for alleged violation of Freedom of Panorama (of an alleged copyrighted item in the protest poster, the drawing - not photo - of Bidzina Ivanishvili). 5 minutes after that nomination User A1Cafel uploaded the photo of this nomination page (File:Protest Tbilisi 21 April 2024 (53987798696).jpg), which actually does contain a photo (and not own drawing) of Ivanishvili and therefore is in violation of FOP. I pointed out this and their double standards. To correct their error / circumvent the rules, they decided to blur out the copyrighted element, thereby rendering the message of the poster useless, and thereby the photo as such here in Commons. Even though according to the license this is fine to do, nobody is going to use this photo. It's incomplete like this. This has nothing to do with competing photos. They're both mine anyways. The blur doesn't add anything to the photo other than rendering it completely useless. Labrang (talk) 21:27, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this image BUT the initial version from "03:42, 12 September 2024" shall be deleted. --Msb (talk) 16:33, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Again, with the blurred object the entire political message has been damaged. There is no value for it, not even "educational value", unless you want to keep it for Georgian language training. I mean really, just delete the photo why keep (political activism) photos that miss the point? Nobody is going to use this photo this way anyways, especially since third parties can just use the unedited and undamaged file directly from Flickr, so why would you want to keep it? It's not even valuable for archiving and history purposes just in case I delete the Flickr original. You guys are really funny. Just delete it. Tons of images are deleted every day, what would be so special to keep this? Why would you want to hang on to it? There are plenty of protest photos by now in this category.Labrang (talk) 16:43, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I maintain that even if the small detail of that poster (it is actually not a banner) has been removed, it is suitable for illustrating the protests there satisfyingly. After all, the protest poster was photographed in such a way that it is shown in the overall setting of the protest: surrounding buildings, protest poster and, above all, other protesters.

It should also be noted that deleting the original version does not mean that the image material is lost forever on Commons. It can be easily restored in the future once the copyright has expired.

BTW: It's not a good idea to verbally attack someone if they disagree with you. -- Msb (talk) 16:56, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Again, nobody is going to use this photo this way (I can predict that and I think you actually are aware of that as well), so why would one maintain the desire to keep it here if an element in the original would violate the rules and cannot simply be cropped out. Rules that are odd in the first place, as anyone in the world can and will use the original from Flickr with the so-called copyrighted element. Of course I won't start a discussion about the rules, that's out of place here, but just to highlight how ~~silly~~ odd it is to rather blur parts to maintain the photo here for rules sake. Nobody will use it. Why cling on to it? What's the big deal?

The sole reason this photo was uploaded to Commons in the first place was because the uploader applied this very same rule to another photo a few minutes prior and then hastily mass-uploaded photos from the same Flickr album without looking properly, ignoring the rules "they" just applied to a photo they nominated for deletion. I, as ~~owner~~ creator of the photo, would not have uploaded this one, and had to point out the rules "they" applied to another photo of the same series minutes earlier. Only after that "they" backtracked and edited hours later the photo, just so they can cling on to a photo. While I am happy enough to see photos deleted if they don't qualify, I see here people who hang on to it like it is something they own and never want to let go, and rather dismember the "artwork" of the protester.

This really is becoming comedic and totally silly. That is not verbally attacking anyone personally here. It's this way of dealing with requests of the ~~owners~~ creators of the original photo that I wonder whether I should contribute to Commons my photos that you (plural, not insult) value so much apparently. I mean, it's just a matter of notching the license slightly just so that it can be used everywhere in the world freely except here.Labrang (talk) 18:23, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as OP. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:16, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please

Delete per COM:POSTER - see Commons:Deletion requests/File:2024 Georgian Protests, April 28 (3).jpg Labrang (talk) 12:24, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

tagging Wdwd. Labrang (talk) 12:24, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What copyrighted items do you see on that image? Msb (talk) 19:08, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Which copyrighted items do you see on the above mentioned (and deleted) poster - which was this poster - and where is the difference with COM:Poster for both items. I also want to learn from the judgement grounds in commons. Labrang (talk) 10:36, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The problem was probably the drawings, which are copyrighted by the creator. The font is not considered worthy of protection. In this picture here, elements worthy of protection have been removed, see its file history. Msb (talk) 11:46, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So street graffiti drawings/stamps are also copyright protected, being put by ordinary citizens just like any random protest poster? Just trying to find consistency here. As for the blurred out parts: this renders the political message useless as explained above and nobody will use the photo like this. The whole point was the presentation of the oligarch in question as a crocodile. Labrang (talk) 16:43, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A graffito is permanently visible (preferably) in a publicly accessible place. The “permanently” is decisive here. It is not a protest poster, it disappears after the demonstration in the private household of the creator (maybe). If you are of the opinion that such a protest poster without this negligible image does not represent any added value for Commons, that it is “out of scope”, then that is a different matter. In any case, there was definitely no copyright infringement with this file. Msb (talk) 15:11, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There was prior to me highlighting to the uploader he/she applied double standards and uploaded the file regardless with the copyright violation. Only after that, the uploader corrected his/her flaw by essentially damaging the political message here. Sure, the picture is now not in so-called violation, but at the same time is essentially useless - the entire world can just move to the original on Flickr and use that. Freely. As I allow that via Flickr. But hey, if Commons community thinks that the commons archive is supposed to hold useless photos, be my guest. ;-) No insult, but just a critical remark on what we are actually doing here. Labrang (talk) 18:25, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Funnel cloud east of Salina, Kansas April 14, 2011 (2).jpg

This file is sourced to a National Weather Service website.

Such sites host a mixture of content created by the US federal government (public domain) and content created by businesses and private individuals (a wide variety of free and unfree licenses).

Copyright and licensing details of such third-party files is usually set out in the image captions.

Unfortunately, this image is no longer published by the NWS, and the only source information provided here is the URL of the image itself; we no longer have access to its copyright and licensing information.

Because we cannot verify that it is (or was ever) available under a free license, we must delete as a precaution unless the precise source and evidence of permission can be found.

Closing admins should familiarise themselves with the evidence and discussions at this RfC when closing this request.

Rlandmann (talk) 10:42, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per @Rlandmann. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 17:14, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:VitamineB5.png

Only used on a user subpage, and has colored chemical symbols and halves of bonds. Alfa-ketosav (talk) 11:34, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Quite low in quality with opaque background & colored atoms. We have a bunch of replacements in Category:Pantothenic acid. Chem Sim 2001 (talk) 19:31, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:JupiterccnetcomSN2.jpg

Low quality image now unused. Alfa-ketosav (talk) 11:40, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Chem Sim 2001 (talk) 19:38, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Acetorphine.svg

Wrong double bond geometry. We have File:Acetorphine structure.svg that is a correct version. Marbletan (talk) 13:11, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's clear that it can only be cis (that's your complaint, i suppose), so it does not matter that it is drawn like trans for better style. I don't know what my sources have been 7 years ago, but there are still much drawings of Acetorphine around like this. Itu (talk) 06:42, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ despite appearing as incorrect alkene geometry, but add note to the image-description page about it (and maybe rename too, for clarity). This seems to be an unfortunately a common way of drawing alkene-bridged cyclic structures, especially in morphine-type structures in some contexts. DMacks (talk) 19:36, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

General comment: trans-style in rings is a general topic. There should be an overview page for this instead of handling it only in individual deletion requests. --Itu (talk) 06:48, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, this issue has been discussed multiple times before:
Marbletan (talk) 13:25, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Three thoughts:
1. While it's obviously "not correct", I generally don't think it's bad enough if someone else actually wants to keep it for some reason (my !vote here was based on uploader's preference that it is "better style", with COM:EDUSE allowing *wiki editors to decide what to use even if we think it's not great). But is it in-use?
2. Agree that we should centralize a note about this. Let's think COM:EDUSE here...Do we have a use-case for "something like this"? Sure, as an example of how it's sometimes represented and that it's incorrect. Do we need lots of such examples for this purpose? I don't think so (and EDUSE explicitly agrees). Is this one a good one example for that discussion? No, because there are other style changes that make it hard for non-experts to see that one difference. Do we have a better example?
3. Delete because not only is it non-standard in that regard, but the stereocenter at the tertiary alcohol is also non-standardly drawn.
DMacks (talk) 16:03, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:2024 Tour de France Femmes.svg

There's an improved version available. Both versions are fresh from the Map workshop, with no File usage on other wikis. I'm new to this, next time I might test how the image looks on a temporary page, in order to save you some time... Groetjes, Peter (talk) 13:56, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files uploaded by InfinitiBowie97 (talk · contribs)

User has previously implied that they were uploading images of this basketball player without permission from the photographers. No source cited.

Adeletron 3030 (talk) 14:19, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Not understanding what the issue is here now. I spoke with other admin previously about errors made when uploading images of Darnell. These images on the current page are works of my own, which I was told I am allowed to upload. What other source would I need to provide if these images are my own self works? InfinitiBowie97 (talk) 17:54, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I've been notified that three of the images I uploaded onto Darnell's page have been wrongfully flagged for deletion. I will start by saying that I do know Darnell personally and have taken images of him in the past and recently with my iPhone. I uploaded and shared this info under own works for each image. Previously when I first created this page, I did discuss with other with other Wiki admin that the images I was originally using derived from other news sources, as I did not understand Wiki's image upload practices at the time, and simply thought I was able to just cite the work, not knowing that I had to receive explicit permission. Once Wiki's admins explained the process to me, I sought and received permissions to use two photos that I uploaded onto Commons (these are two FDU photos that I received explicit permission from and have been communicated to Wiki Permissions via email from the copyright holder). However, the three images currently uploaded are own works I have taken myself recently and previously. I initially did not use those as I originally did not feel they were of great quality - however, I decided to upload the old ones and the new one I recently took of him in August after Wiki admin said I can upload own works. How can I remove the deletion request from the three photos currently on his page? Thanks! InfinitiBowie97 (talk) 02:19, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@InfinitiBowie97: Consider following the similar instructions as specified at User_talk:InfinitiBowie97#File_tagging_File:Darnell_Indios.jpg. As these files are low resolution and missing EXIF meta data, please understand the need for Commons to be cautious. Regards. —Bagumba (talk) 01:16, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not delete. The other photographs of Darnell Edge are in the enwiki article. Krok6kola (talk) 23:20, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Red Ensign of the Solomon Islands (1947-1956).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) 14:24, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Red Ensign of the Solomon Islands (1956-1966).svg

This file has been replaced by a better one, so I recommend deleting it quickly. 反共抗獨光復民國 (talk) 14:25, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Red Ensign of the Solomon Islands (1966-1977).svg

This flag is a purely fictitious imaginary flag and there is no source to suggest that the Solomon Islands Red Ensign removed the white disc in 1966. I therefore recommend that it be removed promptly. 反共抗獨光復民國 (talk) 14:27, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Vue aérienne du centre ville de Drumettaz.jpg

Violation de copyright c/c du site : https://www.drumettaz-clarafond.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/drumettaz-drone.jpg B-noa (talk) 14:34, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Portrait of Abulkhair Khan.jpg

This, most definitely, is not their work. Malik Nursultan B (talk) 15:27, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Tongi graffiti 6.jpg

Copyrightable icon visible in art. Also no FoP for 2d art in Bangladesh Wasiul Bahar (talk) 15:56, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Under the Copyright Act, 2000 of Bangladesh, photographing and publishing images of graffiti that are permanently situated in public places or accessible premises does not constitute copyright infringement. According to Section 72(20), the act allows for the making or publishing of paintings, drawings, engravings, or photographs of sculptures or other artistic works that are permanently displayed in public spaces or accessible premises. This provision is an application of the "freedom of panorama," ({{FoP-Bangladesh}}) as long as they are considered paintings, drawings, or other forms of artistic craftsmanship and are permanently situated in publicly accessible locations. —MdsShakil (talk) 13:17, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In addition, those apps icons are already available on Wikimedia Commons so there are no violations. —MdsShakil (talk) 13:19, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@MdsShakil Please check sec. 72(20) and also sec. 36(c) under sec. 2 Wasiul Bahar (talk) 17:20, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Upon reviewing Section 72(20) of the Copyright Act, 2000, it indeed states that photographing and publishing artistic works, including those permanently situated in public spaces, is allowed under the freedom of panorama. This includes paintings, drawings, engravings, and photographs, provided that they are permanently displayed in accessible public spaces.

Regarding Section 36(c) under Section 2, it defines "artistic work" to include “any other work of artistic craftsmanship”. Graffiti would likely fall under this category if considered a form of artistic craftsmanship, which strengthens the argument that graffiti permanently situated in public spaces is covered under the freedom of panorama exception.

Therefore, both Section 72(20) and Section 36(c) support the claim that graffiti, as an artistic work permanently displayed in a public place, can be photographed and published without infringing copyright. —MdsShakil (talk) 09:43, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@MdsShakil A small misinterpretation happening with the provisions of the 2000 act.

The act explicitly allows per section 72(20) “The making or publishing of painting, drawing, engraving or photograph of a sculpture or other artistic work falling under [only] section 36(c), [...].” The section 36(c) of provision 2 includes any other artistic craftsmanship, excluding "a painting, a sculpture, a drawing (including a diagram, map, chart or plan), an engraving or a photograph whether or not any such work possesses artistic quality;" [36(a)] and "a work of architecture;" [36(b)]. However FoP for any derivative works for architectures [36(b)] are granted per section 72(19), therefore leaving no FoP for any artistic works falling under 36(a) of provision 2 (only excluding sculptures) wherever they are, even in the open place or a place having public access. There was a previous discussion regarding the status of graffiti inside Bangladesh in an undeletion request which can be found here. Wasiul Bahar (talk) 10:53, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per MdsShakil. —Yahya (talk • contribs.) 10:49, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files uploaded by TuhinShahabuddin (talk · contribs)

No indication of any free license in source site.

–TANBIRUZZAMAN (💬) 15:58, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:深圳的豬腳飯1.jpg

File was removed from Flickr, unknown copyright status A1Cafel (talk) 16:09, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no way to know, unfortunately Queen of Hearts (talk) 03:18, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ben-Eliyahu.png

No permission from the source and author A1Cafel (talk) 16:33, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Burkaygourmand.jpg

Copyvio; Profile picture on X. The Emptiness Machine (talk) 16:49, 12 September 2024 (UTC) https://x.com/Meleklerin_Payi/status/1705495309399257341 The Emptiness Machine (talk) 16:50, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:𫷡-bronse-spring.svg

ファイルネームの誤り AggregatibacterActinomycetemcomitans (talk) 17:09, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ファイルネームの誤り AggregatibacterActinomycetemcomitans (talk) 04:12, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Salazar Slytherin.jpg

This file was initially tagged by Grandmaster Huon as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: Derivative work of copyrighted material. Derivative work of copyrighted characters King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:11, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Not a derivative, simply an illustration based on some literary work instead of on some image of the character. Prototyperspective (talk) 23:52, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Davy Jones (Humano).jpg

This file was initially tagged by Grandmaster Huon as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: Derivative work of copyrighted material. Derivative work of copyrighted characters King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:11, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Morgoth - Melkor.jpg

This file was initially tagged by Grandmaster Huon as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: Derivative work of copyrighted material. Derivative work of copyrighted characters King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:11, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Not a derivative, simply an illustration based on some old literary work instead of on some image of the character. Prototyperspective (talk) 23:57, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Darth Plagueis el Sabio.jpg

This file was initially tagged by Grandmaster Huon as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: Derivative work of copyrighted material. Derivative work of copyrighted characters King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:12, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Annatar, Lord of Gifts.jpg

This file was initially tagged by Grandmaster Huon as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: Derivative work of copyrighted material. Derivative work of copyrighted characters King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:12, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Not a derivative, simply an illustration based on some old literary work instead of on some image of the character. Prototyperspective (talk) 23:55, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Obito-Zetsu.jpg

This file was initially tagged by Grandmaster Huon as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: Derivative work of copyrighted material. Derivative work of copyrighted characters King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:12, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:S. Snape.jpg

This file was initially tagged by Grandmaster Huon as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: Derivative work of copyrighted material. Derivative work of copyrighted characters King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:13, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is it looks a lot like the character in the movie, isn't this a fan art derivative then Prototyperspective (talk) 23:41, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ahsoka Tano.jpg

This file was initially tagged by Grandmaster Huon as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: Derivative work of copyrighted material. Derivative work of copyrighted characters King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:13, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Rey Brujo de Angmar.jpg

This file was initially tagged by Grandmaster Huon as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: Derivative work of copyrighted material. Derivative work of copyrighted characters King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:13, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Not a derivative, simply an illustration based on some old literary work instead of on some image of the character. Prototyperspective (talk) 23:43, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:BUGWUFlierPride.jpg

Unfortunately, there is no freedom of panorama for posters in the US. Permission from the union sent via VTRS would be needed. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 17:42, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I had no idea, damn :( thanks for letting me know about this Pacamah (talk) 22:13, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files uploaded by 백근영 (talk · contribs)

Unused low quality math formulas, raw text is out of scope, w:en:Help:TEX should be used instead.

~TheImaCow (talk) 18:14, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Crónicas de Sanmao.jpg

The uploader cannot have the rights to release the illustration under a free license because it was drawn by Zhang Leping. Di (they-them) (talk) 18:24, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ellada İlyasqızı.jpg

Şəkilin yerləşdiyi məqalə silinib. Zəhmət olmasa şəkilin özünü də silərdiniz. TahirGuliyev (talk) 18:26, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Heinz Piontek.jpg

Offensichtliche Fehllizenzierung, zum einen sollen der Urheber und die abgebildete Peron identisch sein, es handelt sich aber zweífellos nicht um ein -Selfie, um anderen wird nicht klar, welches Recht der Hochlader hat, dieses Foto hochzuladen und unter eine CC-Lizenz zu stellen

Obvious mislicensing, on the one hand the author and the person depicted are supposed to be identical, but it is undoubtedly not a selfie, on the other hand it is not clear what right the uploader has to upload this photo and place it under a CC licence Lutheraner (talk) 18:59, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Das Foto wurde dem Autor von Anton Hirner zum Upload zur Verfügung gestellt. Anton Hirner verwahrt die Nutzungsrechte sämtlicher Werke von Heinz Piontek.

Weitere Informationen unter https://heinz-piontek.de/impressum Webulrich (talk) 07:49, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Webulrich: In diesem Fall benötigen wir eine Genehmigung per E-Mail von Herrn Hirner. Details, zu verwendender Text, Adresse siehe COM:VRT/de. Gruß --Rosenzweig τ 08:33, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Рахдониты.jpg

Low-quality duplicate (photo from computer screen) of File:Saint Adalbert of Prague pleads with Boleslaus II, Duke of Bohemia, for the release of Christians slaves by their masters, Jewish merchants, Gniezno Door ca. 1170.png Mikhail Ryazanov (talk) 19:26, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Pery Broad - Auschwitz trial (1964).jpg

This file was already kept in 2016, but it was a procedural keep because of an unwieldy DR. So there is no impediment for a new nomination.

The file was transferred here in 2014 from en.wp, where it was uploaded in 2010 and is still available today as en:File:Perybroad.jpg. It was uploaded there by en:User:Anthraxx56@yahoo.com, who uploaded (at least) three files there, see en:Special:ListFiles/Anthraxx56@yahoo.com. All with a similar credit, Pic by Ryza Jane, BSPSYCH or Pic by Ryza Jane, BSPSYCH grad or Pic by R.J.M, BSPsych. It is completely unclear who this Ryza Jane person is or was and why User:Anthraxx56@yahoo.com would be authorized to upload images provided (?) or taken (?) by this person to en.wp under Creative Commons licenses.

This photo is claimed to have been "photographed in the 60's or 70's". It looks like it was scanned from somewhere. Without more information about source, time, place, author etc. we cannot determine the copyright status of this photo other than that it is apparently not old enough for {{PD-old-assumed}}. So the file should be deleted per the precautionary principle unless convincingly shown to actually be in the public domain or under a free license. Rosenzweig τ 20:28, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Karl Fritzsch at Auschwitz.jpg

The file was transferred here in 2008 from en.wp, where it had been uploaded by en:User:Anthraxx56@yahoo.com with a credit Pic by Ryza Jane Maranan, BSPSYCH 3rd yr. And again: It is completely unclear who this Ryza Jane person is or was and why User:Anthraxx56@yahoo.com would be authorized to upload images provided (?) or taken (?) by this person to en.wp under Creative Commons licenses.

Without more information about source, time, place, author etc. we cannot determine the copyright status of this photo other than that it is apparently not old enough for {{PD-old-assumed}}. So the file should be deleted per the precautionary principle unless convincingly shown to actually be in the public domain or under a free license. Rosenzweig τ 20:36, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Two other Ryza Jane files were already deleted many years ago, see Commons:Deletion requests/Image:KAEichmann RyzaJaneMPics.JPG and Commons:Deletion requests/File:Wilhlem Boger RhyzMarananPix.jpg. --Rosenzweig τ 20:40, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Old map of Trenton, Ontario (52979205104).jpg

I uploaded this 1913 image. I don't want to see it deleted. I was puzzled as to why it triggered a blacklist ban. Geo Swan (talk) 20:47, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I checked this flickr contributors other images. The first 100 or so are all clearly PD due to age.
I suspect someone was overzealous with that blacklist. Geo Swan (talk) 20:50, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Iosif II.jpg

It's a lower quality copy of File:Portrait of Emperor Joseph II in military uniform.jpg Ecummenic (talk) 20:55, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Caribana Toronto 2015 (20416869330).jpg

This file was initially tagged by AntiCompositeBot as no license ... this robot thinks it should over-ride human judgement. I think it is now understood that close to half of flickr contributors honestly think they should apply a public domain mark to their own images, so robots should stop flagging these images for deletion. Geo Swan (talk) 21:12, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Glove Cycle sculpture outbound platform.jpg

No FOP in US 4300streetcar (talk) 21:50, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep According to File:Part of Glove Cycle, October 2019.jpg (assuming this is the same installation), the artwork is covered under Template:PD-US-1978-1989.
Side note, I decided to boldly fix the deletion template since the NoFOP template messed up the arrangement on the file page. S5A-0043^Talk 03:09, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files uploaded by Dr. Alice Prince (talk · contribs)

Unused low quality images of non-notable event, apparently uploaded for promotion

~TheImaCow (talk) 22:17, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Deletion requests/2024/09/12

September 12

Files in Category:Diego Rivera & Frida Kahlo Studio

Files uploaded by InfinitiBowie97 (talk · contribs)

Files uploaded by TuhinShahabuddin (talk · contribs)

Files uploaded by 백근영 (talk · contribs)

Files uploaded by Dr. Alice Prince (talk · contribs)

Navigation menu

Search