Commons:Deletion requests/2024/09/24

September 24

edit

May be below COM:TOO UK, where Sega of Europe is headquartered and where the console was sold first in PAL regions. Grandmaster Huon (talk) 00:42, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yo (Gerard_123), subí esta foto hace 17 años cuando era niño y no recuerdo de dónde la saqué. Me acabo de cruzar con la imagen y veo que al subirla he dicho que era trabajo propio, lo cual no es cierto. Ni siquiera estoy seguro de que sea una foto del lugar especificado, dado que al buscar la foto en línea ahora sólo encuentro referencias a esta misma página. Lo siento mucho y disculpas por las molestias causadas. gerardini 03:05, 24 September 2024 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gerard 123 (talk • contribs) 03:05, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Google Translation: "I (Gerard_123) uploaded this photo 17 years ago when I was a kid and I can't remember where I got it from. I just came across the image and I see that when I uploaded it I said it was my own work, which is not true. I'm not even sure it's a photo of the specified location, since when I search for the photo online now I only find references to this very page. I'm very sorry and apologies for any inconvenience caused."

fake licence. Pessimist (talk) 06:59, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is a different file in the source. R8soul (talk) 10:45, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  1. File:Berry Field Administration.jpg -- this image originally shared this nomination; now split to Commons:Deletion requests/File:Berry Field Administration.jpg
  2. File:Gallatin before.jpg

This file was sourced from the website of the National Weather Service Nashville office. It was taken in 2006

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).

In the absence of an explicit and proximate copyright statement, the only way we can know with any certainty whether an image supplied to the NWS by a third party is free or not is to approach its creator and ask.

Unfortunately, this image was published anonymously by the NWS, and because it does not look like the kind of photo usually taken by NWS employees in the line of duty, I asked the regional office in Nashville, which published it, where it had come from. They told me:

  • they do not know who took it

I have forwarded the conversation to the VRT. (ticket:2024092410002991)

As an image created in the United States on or after March 1, 1989, it was protected by copyright as soon as it was taken, unless it was ineligible for copyright for some reason.

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

Rlandmann (talk) 07:36, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Derivatives of modern copyrighted artworks, no FoP in Russia except architecture.

Quick1984 (talk) 08:08, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Derivatives of modern copyrighted artworks, no FoP in Russia except architecture.

Quick1984 (talk) 08:09, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Derivatives of modern copyrighted artworks, no FoP in Russia except architecture.

Quick1984 (talk) 08:09, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Derivatives of the modern copyrighted artwork, no FoP in Russia except architecture.

Quick1984 (talk) 08:10, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Derivatives of the modern copyrighted artwork, no FoP in Russia except architecture.

Quick1984 (talk) 08:11, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Derivatives of modern copyrighted artworks, no FoP in Russia except architecture.

Quick1984 (talk) 08:12, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Derivatives of the modern copyrighted artwork, no FoP in Russia except architecture.

Quick1984 (talk) 08:12, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Derivatives of the modern copyrighted artwork (erected in 1999), no FoP in Russia except architecture.

Quick1984 (talk) 08:14, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Derivatives of modern copyrighted artworks, no FoP in Russia except architecture.

Quick1984 (talk) 08:15, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Derivatives of the modern copyrighted artwork, no FoP in Russia except architecture.

Quick1984 (talk) 08:16, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Derivatives of the modern copyrighted artwork, no FoP in Russia except architecture.

Quick1984 (talk) 08:16, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

COM:DW. see Commons:Deletion requests/File:803 monster2.jpg. eien20 (talk) 10:16, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

stained glass window from 1988 inside the church, freedom of panorama in Poland does not apply to interiors 87.205.166.75 10:19, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No FoP in France Nutshinou Talk! 10:32, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files uploaded by Shredproof (talk · contribs)

edit

Suspected copyright violations: file EXIFs show "Author Kerry Constantino Copyright holder Kerry Constantino Photography". VRT permission from Kerry Constantino needed.

MKFI (talk) 10:40, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

COM:PACKAGE Solomon203 (talk) 13:16, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

These all need a free license from the actual photographer using VRT.

.     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:36, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

they do? TheLoyalOrder (talk) 20:54, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
ok the sue bradford and sue kedgley ones dont, the others do. unless you're saying the vrt is wrong? TheLoyalOrder (talk) 21:02, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
there is this https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Sir_Anon/Green_Party_NZ TheLoyalOrder (talk) 22:41, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Author is COP28 / Mahmoud Khaled per Metadata, not a work from the Maldives presidency, thus the license is invalid A1Cafel (talk) 14:56, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Photo by COP28 / Anthony Fleyhan per Metadata, not a work from the Maldives presidency, thus the license is invalid A1Cafel (talk) 14:57, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Author is COP28 / Mahmoud Khaled per Metadata, not a work from the Maldives presidency, thus the license is invalid A1Cafel (talk) 14:57, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Photo by COP28 / Neville Hopwood per Metadata, not a work from the Maldives presidency, thus the license is invalid A1Cafel (talk) 14:58, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Author is COP28 / Mahmoud Khaled per Metadata, not a work from the Maldives presidency, thus the license is invalid A1Cafel (talk) 14:58, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

صورة لها حقوق  Mohammed Qays  🗣 18:48, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Files uploaded by user with inappropriate username (who I blocked). Individual reasons given below.

holly {chat} 19:04, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That is what the link and categories are for. --RAN (talk) 23:11, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Keep File:Dialogue-hochi-building.jpg source now included. Published in 1987, the newspaper did not have a copyright notice in the masthead or publishers info on page 2. --RAN (talk) 15:49, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Keep File:Edwin Leo Bauer 1953.png the copyright would have belonged to the photographer and I can find no image of Edwin Leo Bauer under any variation of his name in the USCO registration database or the USCO renewal database. Tineye searched 65 billion images and could find no named photographer or anyone claiming an active copyright for the image. --RAN (talk) 23:27, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • You added a link to a smaller, uncropped version of the photo, but what is the publication history? There's no information available. It's also an assumption that the photo's registration would have Edwin Leo Bauer in the title. The source says "Bauer Estate", so does that mean the uploader got it directly from them? If that's the case, it might not actually have been published until recently. holly {chat} 03:22, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
USA case law has an image "made public" (published) when it leaves the custody of the creator. --RAN (talk) 11:03, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I know you say that a lot, but that doesn't jibe with COM:Publication. But even if that's true (and if it is, please cite the specific case law), if this was a photo taken by the Bauer family, then it's entirely possible it never left their custody until the first time it was posted on a website. holly {chat} 16:26, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • COM:Publication reads: "the distribution of copies or phonorecords of a work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending.", the key words are: "the distribution of copies … or other transfer of ownership". The original creative work is the photographic negative, the copy is the print transferred to the sitter. See the discussion of the case law at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Minerva Kohlhepp Teichert 1908.jpg --RAN (talk) 22:51, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Primary purpose of photo is to depict the sculpture Qwalala by Pae White. Sculptures are not covered under U.S. Freedom of Panorama rules. Sdkbtalk 19:16, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The collage uses non-free elements: no FoP in Russia for 3D no sources of photos indicated Lesless (talk) 20:59, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The photos don't appear to be from Commons. But that does not necessarily rule out that they are the uploader's own work. The beaver sculpture has probably to go, though. Ru wiki says it's authors are a certain Микаэль Согоян (Mikael Sogoyan) and Ваге Согоян (Vage Sogoyan) — the latter is definitely still alive according to Ru Wiki (and I assume that the former is also alive). However, there's also a photo of this sculpture that was released under a CC-BY-SA 4.0 by a government body of Moscow... File:Бибирево парк света скульптура Бобры.jpg. Nakonana (talk) 16:15, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is no commercial Freedom of Panorama in Ukraine. Per this website, the monument dates to 1992. Sculptor is unlikely dead for more than 70 years; as a post-1978 work with no known sculptor, this won't be restored here until 95 1 years after publication or 120 1 years from creation (based on U.S. copyright terms), whichever is shorter. U.S. terms can be ignored if Ukraine had valid commercial FoP in the first place. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 23:32, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Offensichtliche Fehllizenzierung - als Urheber wird das Unternehmen angegeben, Urheber kann aber immer nur eine natürliche Person sein Lutheraner (talk) 23:46, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gegenthese: Der hochladende Benutzer User:Bemefa ist eine natürliche Person, hat selbst fotografiert und hat das Bild korrekt lizensiert. Die Namensgleichheit zum dort ansässigen Unternehmen kann zufällig sein. Einen wirklich belastbaren Löschgrund sehe ich derzeit (noch) nicht. Grüße, --Kleeblatt187 (talk) 22:50, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is no commercial Freedom of Panorama in Ukraine. The monument was unveiled in 1993 and authored by architect Распопін О. and sculptor Липівка І..

JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 23:52, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]