Wikimedia Commons

Commons:Deletion requests/2024/11/05

< Commons:Deletion requests | 2024/11
4 November 2024
6 November 2024
Deletion requests on 5 November 2024

November 5

edit

File:Logo light tl.png

edit

Superseded by File:ONLYOFFICE logo (default).svg Ahri Boy (talk) 00:51, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Seattle sounders textlogo.png

edit

This is too complex for PD-textlogo. See COM:TOO US, which has several images less complex than this that were copyrighted. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 01:26, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Which images? This seems like it should be OK to me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:54, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  Keep the logo is mostly composed of simple text and not complex enough considering that the TOO is pretty high in the US. Otherwise, this emblem has some elements (the wave or the foot ball) that would make it copyrighted in other countries such as the UK or Australia, but for the US it is ok IMO. Fma12 (talk) 20:21, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ajimenezcanale.jpg

edit

Google Images matched this to this YouTube video but I can't find an exact timestamp match. Regardless, it's clearly not pd-algorithm and lacks sufficient source information. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 03:49, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It’s my youtube video. 93.63.240.218 07:59, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Cardinal statue, Ohio State Fair - DPLA - 619d1d5c864232a60432cd80ab268e80 (page 2).jpg

edit

No FoP for 3D works in the United States A1Cafel (talk) 04:04, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]


File:Cardinal statue, Ohio State Fair - DPLA - db8207561c28d25794eeb799dc1216e4 (page 1).jpg

edit

No FoP for 3D works in the United States A1Cafel (talk) 04:04, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]


File:Cardinal statue, Ohio State Fair - DPLA - 619d1d5c864232a60432cd80ab268e80 (page 1).jpg

edit

No FoP for 3D works in the United States A1Cafel (talk) 04:04, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]


File:Emblem of Takashima, Nagasaki (1996–2005).svg

edit

Merge into File:Emblem of Takashima, Nishisonogi, Nagasaki (1996–2005).svg. Xeror (talk) 04:47, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Done Copied the file and description to File:Emblem of Takashima, Nishisonogi, Nagasaki (1996–2005).svg. ReneeWrites (talk) 08:48, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'd agree merging two files, but I have a better idea. What if we delete File:Emblem of Takashima, Nishisonogi, Nagasaki (1996–2005).svg, and, then, rename File:Emblem of Takashima, Nagasaki (1996–2005).svg to have the same name as the file we'd delete before? That would lessen the hassles with the file names.
Also, there exists File:Takashima Nagasaki chapter (Kitamatsuura).gif which has the name similar to the mentioned files, but that file depicts a town in erstwhile Kitamatsuura District as compared to the one in Nishisonogi District. So, it would also help in differentiating towns with similar names but located in different places.
But, I'm not done yet. There are File:Former Takashima Nagasaki chapter.png and File:Flag of Former Takashima Nagasaki.png that need to be renamed to reflect the fact that they depict Takashima in Nishisonogi only and avoid any confusions. In fact, I'll do that thing myself. Besides anything, those are my suggestions to resolve the problem very simply. Thank you. OperationSakura6144 (talk) 04:07, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also, you can discuss in Commons:Deletion requests/File:Emblem of Takashima, Nishisonogi, Nagasaki (1996–2005).svg which I mentioned about the first point of my opinions here. Don't get me wrong, but renaming files is lot more easier, in my opinion. OperationSakura6144 (talk) 04:49, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Update: I tagged the File:Emblem of Takashima, Nishisonogi, Nagasaki (1996–2005).svg as the duplicate. Anybody seeing this needs to delete the duplicate file and rename/move File:Emblem of Takashima, Nagasaki (1996–2005).svg to File:Emblem of Takashima, Nishisonogi, Nagasaki (1996–2005).svg, in order to retain the characteristics of the duplicate file. OperationSakura6144 (talk) 14:16, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:NYC Trump court trial 2024-04-23 035.jpg

edit

Derivative work of a copyrighted portrait A1Cafel (talk) 06:39, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Replaced and revdel requested. SWinxy (talk) 19:24, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:NYC Trump court trial 2024-04-23 034.jpg

edit

Derivative work of a copyrighted portrait A1Cafel (talk) 06:40, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Replaced and revdel requested. SWinxy (talk) 19:24, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Saint Brendan's Cross.svg

edit

It is a registered copyright violation. Registration Number: VA0000190211 Date: 1985-06-06 Pewterer5780 (talk) 08:15, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure that applies to coats of arms elements? Smasongarrison (talk) 12:26, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Egypt propaganga 1967 10.jpg

edit

Even though this image shows an Egyptian president, the source does not identify it as Egyptian and in fact it comes from a Lebanese newspaper. So the copyright information is incorrect. At this point there is an issue that needs expert advice. There is a tag {{PD-Lebanon}} that is described at Commons:Copyright_rules_by_territory/Consolidated_list_L#Lebanon as "photos and two dimensional artistic works 50 years after publication, starting from the end of the publication year". However, the official English translation of Lebanese copyright law does not have an rule for two-dimensional artistic works that exempts them from the usual author's death plus 50 years. This is not an "audiovisual" work (see the definition in the law). It seems to my inexpert eyes that this image is only out of copyright in Lebanon if the author was not named in the original publication, or it was copyright to the newspaper, or the author died within 7 years of the 1967 publication date. I don't know which if any of these things was true. Zero0000 (talk) 11:22, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Photos of 1952 Fayetteville tornado hosted by NWS Huntsville

edit

These images were both sourced from webpages of the US National Weather Service. However, we have no evidence that either of these images are in the public domain or available under a free license. One of them is of an extreme weather event in progress, and the other is specifically attributed to a third party.

For many years, hosting such images on the Commons was done in good faith under the rationale that:

  • public submissions to the NWS all entered the public domain and/or
  • all files hosted on NWS websites were in the public domain unless they carried a formal copyright notice

An extensive review of this rationale in 2024 revealed that neither of these beliefs held up to scrutiny. These findings were confirmed in an RfC conducted from August to October 2024.

Per COM:ONUS it is the responsibility of the person uploading an image to the Commons or anyone arguing for its retention here to provide evidence of permission from the copyright holder. Although it is possible that an NWS employee photographed the tornado in progress as part of their official duties, such images are almost unknown, and practical experience suggests that this is far more likely to be the work of an anonymous, third-party photographer. The other image, along with 13 others in the same gallery, is attributed to one Jim Cashion, but there is no further clue to his identity.

I contacted the NWS Huntsville office on October 2 to ask about their origins, but received no response. (VRT ticket:2024110510005974)

Since both these images were created in the US before 1989, their copyright statuses rest on knowing when and in what context they were first published. Currently, we do not have any evidence of their publication history. Therefore, their copyright statuses are unknown and we must delete both as a precaution under COM:PRP.

Update

edit

I have received a response from NWS Huntsville. Jim Cashion (Fayetteville 1952 picture 2 sm.png) was/is a member of the public. The origin of the other photo (File:Fayetteville 1952 tornado pic.jpg) is not known. I have updated the VRT ticket.


Rlandmann (talk) 11:43, 5 November 2024 (UTC) Hay que proceder a su eliminación — Preceding unsigned comment added by Laurasanchez27 (talk • contribs) 13:23, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Juanjo Bona Arregui.png

edit

No sé adecúa a los criterios de derechos de autor Laurasanchez27 (talk) 13:13, 5 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:Hot Kid Drink Milk 20150528.jpg

edit

Per COM:PACKAGING Wcam (talk) 12:01, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please do it. --Wcam (talk) 18:02, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: I've cropped the image and hidden the original revision. Daphne Lantier 21:11, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Hot Kid Drink Milk 20150528.jpg

edit

COM:PACKAGE Solomon203 (talk) 13:35, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Solomon203: It was cropped in 2017 to remove logos. I could check if there were changes in COM:PACKAGE between 2017 and 2024... WhisperToMe (talk) 05:29, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The 2017 and 2024 revisions. From the 2024 version: "but often the problem is not a logo but a printed photograph or drawing on the packaging which illustrates the contents." I don't see a printed drawing. WhisperToMe (talk) 05:33, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Serafinosordi.jpg

edit

If this is a work by Giuseppe Moroni, not public domain yet. Yann (talk) 14:30, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

caro Yann, non capisco perchè la mia richiesta di cancellazione di un quadro di Moroni (fra l'altro non utilizzato su wikipedia) abbia scatenato la tua richiesta di cancellare di tutte le altre immagini da me pubblicate. Ti faccio presente che il pittore Moroni (il cui autoritratto fra l'altro è di mia proprietà) era primo cugino di mia suocera Maria Francesca Fava in quanto figlio di una sorella di suo padre. Serafino Sordi di cui proponi la cancellazione è pure un mio antenato il cui ritratto è ora presso l'Istituto dei Gesuiti di Gallarate. Le immagini da me pubblicate anche quella di cui ho chiesto la cancellazione sono tutte di pubblico dominio in quando presenti nei musei o nelle chiese. Saluti cordiali Giuseppinasordi (talk) 15:44, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Giuseppinasordi: No, works by Giuseppe Moroni are not yet in the public domain. They will be in 2030. It would be nice if a permission for a free license could be provided, but only the copyright holder of these files can do that. Please see COM:VRT/it for the procedure (in Italian). By the way, images of high resolution would be useful. Thanks, Yann (talk) 15:58, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Caro Yann, non sono del tutto d'accordo con te in quanto avendo ricevuto in eredità l'autoritratto del pittore Giuseppe Moroni penso che eventuali diritti spetterebbero solo a me, pertanto penso sia mio diritto di rinunciarvi e di poter rendere il dipinto di pubblico dominio. Saluti cordiali Giuseppinasordi (talk) 21:29, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That may be true, but you must confirm it by email, probably with the necessary proofs. Yann (talk) 08:39, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Posso confermare come vero quanto ti ho scritto relativamente all'autoritratto di Giuseppe Moroni alla email di cui non mi hai dato l'indirizzo, ma non intendo mandare, come mi sembra giusto, documenti che riguardano la privancy mia o della mia famiglia. Cordiali saluti Giuseppinasordi (talk) 14:16, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Documents sent to VRT remain private. The files will be deleted if you can't prove that you are the copyright holder. Anyone can register an account as "Giuseppinasordi". How can we know that you have the rights you claim? Yann (talk) 16:07, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Non capisco innanzitutto perché tu mi scriva in inglese e non dall’Italia. In secondo luogo alla frase “ chiunque può registrare un account come Giuseppinasordi" che che dimostra sfiducia nei miei confronti, potrei risponderti “chiunque può registrare un account come Yann”. Sono dieci anni che l’autoritratto di Giuseppe Moroni si trova su Wikipedia e nessuno ha mai fatto obiezioni, mi sembra che lo spirito di Wikipedia non sia quello dell’inquisizione ma della fiducia e della collaborazione. Se tu ricevessi in eredità un dipinto frutto della ripartizione amichevole fra gli eredi, che documento avresti a disposizione per dimostrare la tua proprietà se non la fiducia che gli altri hanno nei tuoi confronti? Giuseppinasordi (talk) 14:37, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Giuseppinasordi: I don't speak Italian, but I use Google Translate to understand you. @Blackcat, Jaqen, and Ruthven: are administrators who speak Italian. Yann (talk) 15:43, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Giuseppinasordi: sono Sergio (aka Blackcat), un admin in lingua italiana su Commons. Purtroppo ha ragione @Yann: , su Commons per liberare un'opera è necessaria, appunto, la liberatoria. Siamo tutti disposti a credere che tu sia Giuseppina Sordi, ma per motivi legali dobbiamo esserne certi e l'unico modo per esserlo è inviare una liberatoria corredata di un documento d'identità che certifichi che il titolare dei diritti è effettivamente chi dichiara di essere. Per quanto riguarda la domanda sul perché Yann ti scriva in inglese e non dall'Italia: Commons è un progetto multinazionale e la lingua utilizzata per interagire è l'inglese (Yann peraltro è madrelingua francese). In genere quando parliamo con i conterranei usando la lingua madre comune è per spiegare meglio certe cose come in questo caso, ed essere sicuri di farci capire bene. Grazie per la comprensione e la collaborazione. -- Blackcat   16:20, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Giuseppinasordi: Confermo qunto detto sopra: per legge serve l'autorizzazione per iscritto degli eredi di Giuseppe Moroni. L'indirizzo a cui mandare la conferma della propria identità è [email protected]. Lo scambio è strettamente confidenziale e gestito da utenti che godono della fiducia dell'intera comunità. Questa precauzione serve per proteggere i diritti economici degli eredi di Moroni. Un saluto --Ruthven (msg) 08:19, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
ti comunico che il giorno 10/11 ho inviato all'indirizzo email [email protected] la liberatoria relativa all'autoritratto del pittore Moroni. Cordiali saluti Giuseppinasordi (talk) 11:05, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]


File:4ªJornada - paseo matinal 008 (4929630649).jpg

edit

Also:

Derivative work of the photo. No COM:FOP Spain for 2D works as far as I can tell. MGA73 (talk) 15:31, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]


File:F20241031AM-0026 (54108024916).jpg

edit

Derivative work of a copyrighted photo A1Cafel (talk) 15:44, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Photos of 1916 Texas hurricane hosted by NWS Corpus Christi

edit

These images were all sourced from a webpage of the US National Weather Service. However, we have no evidence that any of these images are in the public domain or available under a free license. I have been able to identify many of them as prints in the Corpus Christi Public Libraries Digital Archives, creating significant doubt that these images were created by federal government employees performing their duties. Besides of which, photographic surveys of storm damage by the NWS do not seem to have been performed as early as this.

For many years, hosting such images on the Commons was done in good faith under the rationale that:

  • public submissions to the NWS all entered the public domain and/or
  • all files hosted on NWS websites were in the public domain unless they carried a formal copyright notice

An extensive review of this rationale in 2024 revealed that neither of these beliefs held up to scrutiny. These findings were confirmed in an RfC conducted from August to October 2024.

Per COM:ONUS it is the responsibility of the person uploading an image to the Commons or anyone arguing for its retention here to provide evidence of permission from the copyright holder. Nevertheless, I reached out to NWS Corpus Christi on September 23 to ask about the sources of these images, but received no response. (VRT ticket:2024110510006455).

I also attempted to match the images with those in online archives, and discovered that all of these images are held by the Corpus Christi Public Libraries Digital Archives in the form of photographic prints (positives):

Prima facie, it seems at least as likely to me that each of these archival images found its way onto an NWS webpage as that these were all NWS images that found their way into the Corpus Christi library archives. The digitized versions on the two sites seem to be scans from the same physical prints; note identical blemishes.

I am also aware of a copy of File:Building destroyed by the 1916 Texas Hurricane.jpg hosted on an NOAA webpage and attributed to the NWS.[9] I regard this attribution as highly suspect, as NOAA attribution of historical images tends to simply indicate where their web developer found the image, not who created it or owns it.

Since these images were created in the US before 1989, their copyright statuses rest on knowing not only who took them, but when and in what context each of them was first published. Currently, we do not have any evidence that any of them were published before they appeared on the NWS website in 2002. Each of their copyright statuses are completely unknown and we must delete all as a precaution under COM:PRP. If they are genuinely orphaned works, they will pass into the public domain 120 years after their creation, in 2037.


--Rlandmann (talk) 13:59, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  •   Keep 1916 US photos out of copyright regardless of whether taken by Federal Gov't photographers or not. {{PD-US-expired}} -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 14:09, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This is incorrect. It all depends on when the image was published. See COM:HIRTLE for a number of different ways in which these images could still be under copyright. Probably the most significant of these is if they sat in an archive and did not see publication until the World Wide Web. Have you seen any of these in any pre-1989 publications? --Rlandmann (talk) 14:17, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Broadly speaking, the possibilities are:
    published between 1929-1963 with a copyright notice, and copyright was correctly registered and renewed
    will be protected for 95 years after publication (so, potentially as late as 2059)
    published between 1964-1977 with a copyright notice
    will be protected for 95 years after publication (so, potentially as late as 2073)
    published between 1978-February 28, 1989 with a copyright notice or published after March 1, 1989
    complicated! Protected until the earliest of: 70 years after the death of the photographer (someone in their 20s who took these photos in 1916 could very well have lived into the 1980s) or 95 years after publication (up to 2085) or 120 years after creation (ie, 2037) or 2047 -- meaning 2037, unless we can establish who the photographer was and when they died
    So yeah, lots of ways any or all of these images could still be under copyright. --Rlandmann (talk) 14:33, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do we have any evidence that they have been in an archive as negatives since creation? USA case law has an image "made public" (published) when it leaves the custody of the creator, not just appearing in a newspaper or magazine. Once a copy has been made, such as a print, it needs to comply with copyright formalities such as a copyright symbol. --RAN (talk) 14:22, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • We don't know. My understanding is that the copies in the archives are prints, not negatives. There would have been a potential publication when the donor of these images (House of Antiques/Applied Photographics) gave these prints to the Corpus Christi Public Libraries; and potentially earlier publications as each of these prints made their way into the collection of "House of Antiques/Applied Photographics" (whoever they were). We don't know when any of these things happened, so anyone who would like us to keep hosting these images might want to start exploring the provenance of the prints in the archive more closely. --Rlandmann (talk) 14:42, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • IMO this doesn't really belong with other NWS/NOAA related deletion listings, as the images do not need to be government works to be public domain. The 1916 Hurricane was a major event, and images of the aftermath were widely published in the era. IMO these have the general appearance of images published in the print era - compare for example the different look of scan from original negative plate of the era File:Cloak makers parade, 1916 LCCN2014702092.jpg. Nothing on the web source suggests that these photos were being share for the first time. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 15:41, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • It's certainly possible (and perhaps even likely) that at least some of these have seen publication elsewhere, either in the normal sense of the word or via some of the technicalities that become significant when analysing US images pre-Berne Convention.
      It's also true that the NWS does not claim that these images are being published for the first time; but that's not the kind of assertion that they usually make, and we cannot attach any special significance to them not making such a claim. It's not even the kind of thing that I would imagine somebody putting together a web story for the NWS circa 2002 would be necessarily particularly aware of when pulling photos from an archive.
      And, while it's certainly possible that some saw publication (in the normal sense of the word) during the print era, for pre-1989 US images, the details of any such publication are crucial to determining copyright status. So, we would need to know when and where each image was published. I have already investigated newspaper coverage of the time, and none of them have turned up there. None of them have turned up on contemporary postcards either, as these kinds of images often did.
      I included these as part of my ongoing work on the NWS images because that was the direct source of the images on the Commons. We know that the NWS is incredibly lax with third-party copyrights, suggesting that we cannot rely on them having performed any due diligence on these. We have to treat such images from first principles, which in this case means knowing their origin and publication history. --Rlandmann (talk) 21:37, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Three questions:

  • I didn't check these all, but most seem to have no identified author. Can we at least assume that if NWS knew the author, they would credit them? And then if no author is given, these can be considered anonymous works?
  • Do we know whether NWS published any of these before 2003?
  • Is there any reason to believe any of these were published before NWS published them?

- Jmabel ! talk 19:36, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And a comment: it should be easy to contact Corpus Christi Public Libraries for what they may know. Public libraries tend to be very cooperative about this sort of thing. - Jmabel ! talk 19:38, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Three answers :)
  • No -- we definitely can't assume that if the NWS knew the author they would credit them. NWS attributions are incredibly inconsistent, and nothing can be inferred from the absence of an attribution. A few weeks ago, my inquiries prompted one NWS office to publish attributions on a bunch of third-party images they they simply hadn't credited at all before, but which didn't look to me like the kinds of images that NWS staff usually take, prompting my inquiry. A few weeks before that, a different NWS office took down a batch of unattributed photos after my questions about their authorship led them to conclude they didn't know whether they should be publishing them or not. I've also seen them publish Getty and AP images without attribution, and in the case of one of the Getty images I asked about, the story gets so much worse that I refuse to elaborate! It's absolute chaos.
  • Yes -- they first appear in the Internet Archive on June 17, 2002.[10] In theory, this could be significant for establishing the "upper bound" for copyright protection. Because they were published pre-2003, the latest any of them will be protected is December 31, 2047. But this becomes significant only if authors are eventually identified, because as anonymous works, they will all pass into the public domain 120 years after they were made, on January 1, 2037. Where this becomes an issue is if a photographer is identified, who took one of these photos quite young and died quite old. Under these circumstances, their photo could remain protected by copyright into the 2060s if first published in 2003 or later. However, because these were first published no later than 2002, the absolute cut-off date for copyright protection is the end of 2047.
  • No -- well, that's the short answer anyway! While trawling public archives and historic newspapers, as well as the web in general, I haven't come up with a verifiable publication earlier than the NWS circa 2002. In fact, these images are not widely published at all. The slightly longer answer is that pre-1989, it was quite easy to forfeit a copyright by not observing the strict requirements of the day. As RAN points out further up, many acts that we would not ordinarily think of as "publication" could fall within the legal definition of the word and lead to an unintentional loss of copyright. However, to know that this had happened for any of these images beyond the Commons threshold of significant doubt, we would need to know a lot more about the histories of each of these images. --Rlandmann (talk) 22:20, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And a comment: I have been balancing my desire to get to the bottom of these NWS image issues against putting in the time, effort, and expense of doing the work that COM:ONUS says somebody else should be doing. Nevertheless, I have just emailed the library service to ask what they know about the copyright status of these images, about when they entered the collection, and anything more about the donor. Other research I have done has identified the donor business and its proprietor, and (perhaps significantly) suggests that it was trading as late as 1989. Very tentatively, this does make me wonder whether any "publication" (in the strictly legal sense) that arose from the donation of these images into the city/library archives happened during the Berne era, which would considerably strengthen the odds of these images being protected by copyright. Anyway, we'll see what they say. --Rlandmann (talk) 22:44, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Update

edit

The Corpus Christi Library Service (CCLS) has been extremely generous in sharing what they know about these images. To summarize:

  • The photographer(s) are unknown, but the prints they have copies of are believed to originate with the family of former Corpus Christi mayor w:Roy Miller
  • The person who annotated the backs of some of the images with personal messages is unknown.
  • The prints were found in materials purchased by a Corpus Christi antiques dealer, Antiques House. CCLS does not know who sold them to Antiques House
  • In 1978, Antiques House offered CCLS the opportunity to have copies of the prints made for the local history collection. These copies were made for the Library Service at no charge by Corpus Christi business Applied Photographics
  • CCLS is treating them as "anonymous works", entering the public domain 120 years after they were made, in 2037

The way I see it, there are at least two distinct points at which copyright might have been lost: when the unknown vendor sold the prints to Antiques House, and when Antiques House offered copies to CCLS. However, whether copyright was actually lost depends principally on the relationship between the creator(s) of the images and the person who sold them to Antiques House. (And also, separately, later, what "for the local history collection" means). CCLS does not have any further information about these transactions. And we do not know, for example, what restrictions on copying might have existed within the local history collection when visitors might have viewed the prints in 1978 (or even what kind of access the public had to these materials at the time).

Given that there is significant doubt surrounding key facts that we would need to make a determination of copyright, and that CCLS themselves are treating them as still protected by copyright, my request to delete these under COM:PRP until 2037 stands.

I've tried to forward the correspondence to the VRT, but I'm getting errors right now and will try again later and update this note. --Rlandmann (talk) 09:03, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Hermann Glöckner mit Frau bei Ausarbeiten eines Putzschnitt "Sonnenuhr" an Haus Heinrich Wentzel Radebeul.jpg

edit

copyvio, kein eigenes Werk von Florian Wentzel sondern wahrscheinlich beschnittener Screenshot. Laut https://www.vorschau-rueckblick.de/2021/11/die-schoenste-und-wohl-auch-groesste-sgraffitoarbeit-von-hermann-gloeckner-in-radebeul/ ist das Foto von Heinrich Wentzel Großer gefräßiger Knoerzkäfer von Traal 17:36, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Playboi Carti at Phoenix Theatre in 2017 7.jpg

edit

Also:

Flickr user is blacklisted. But the license is free. So the question is if blacklist is relevant and if this file is one of the bad files. MGA73 (talk) 20:25, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:WWA-14 01.jpg

edit

Deleted earlier per Commons:Deletion requests/File:Mikoyan-Gurevich Ye-8 (by San Diego A&S museum).jpg (File:Beriev VVA-14 (by San Diego A&S museum) (2).jpg). MGA73 (talk) 21:28, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:JuanBotas.jpg

edit

Likely Flickrwashing. The source is a Flcikr account without content except for this photo. The metadata states the photographer is Carmen Ballve, a professional photographer [11]. Günther Frager (talk) 21:33, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hola @Günther Frager, estoy tratando de contactar con Carmen Ballve para que envíe la Declaración de permiso del poseedor de los derechos de autor a <[email protected]>. Un cordial saludo, Hard (talk) 09:41, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Jean-Pierre Petit en 2022.png

edit

Possible copyvio: Image missing full EXIF data, dubious claim of own work (.png), seems like a screenshot, VRT requested https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Wikimedia_VRT_release_generator CoffeeEngineer (talk) 22:35, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:2020 presidential election US electoral college certificates.jpg

edit

I don't believe simply being taken and uploaded by a senator to Twitter makes it a PD work. Traumnovelle (talk) 22:45, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:CABI Logo.svg

edit

While this is an intergovernmental organization, its offices are in the UK and their IP managment policy applies UK law. Therefore, this is likely a non-free logo per COM:TOO UK AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 23:41, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/2024/11/05&oldid=969684478"