Commons:Deletion requests/2024/12/03

2 December 2024

4 December 2024

Deletion requests on 3 December 2024

December 3

File:Tony Wober.jpg

Own scan 186.175.220.225 00:57, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly, but nothing found on TinEye or Google Images, so why do you think so? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:54, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep unless another evdences be added. I see nothing from TinEye and Google Images. Thanks. Iming (talk) 16:00, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Unless evidence of copyvio is found. Dmartin969 (talk) 05:59, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files uploaded by FunnyMath (talk · contribs)

Animation video not cc-by

shizhao (talk) 02:50, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. I do see a Creative Commons license on the source links on YouTube; there's no immediately obvious reason to doubt the CC-BY license. However, it's not clear to me what the educational purpose of these videos is. Omphalographer (talk) 03:43, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, File:【本予告】劇場版アニメ「i☆Ris the Movie - Full Energy!! -」5月17日(金) 全国劇場公開.webm is COM:INUSE. I'm not going to look through the rest, but if any of the others are in use, they should be kept. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:55, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless there is usage. There is no obvious evidence that there is copyright infringement, but the purpose of the relevant files cannot be found, which may be out of scope. Thanks. Iming (talk) 15:55, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have no idea what the two voters above are thinking. There is a Wikipedia article on the movie that is featured in most of the videos: en:Iris the Movie: Full Energy!!.　The other videos feature characters that are found prominently on merchandise and LINE stamps. See [1]. High quality anime videos that are freely licensed are extremely rare, so the mere fact that they are professionnally-made anime videos should be prima facie evidence of educational use. FunnyMath (talk) 20:33, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Indeed. Sometimes, it really matters when people know the significance of what they're looking at. I didn't. Thanks, User:FunnyMath! -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:21, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per FunnyMath above, high-quality videos of notable anime released by the creators are definitely in-scope. Additionally, as the videos are uploaded to YouTube by an official studio, there's no reason to doubt the validity of the licensing. Di (they-them) (talk) 13:51, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files in Category:Palatul Telefoanelor

The building was completed in 1934 by Walter Froy (unknown year of birth and death), Louis S. Weeks (1881–1971) and Edmond van Saanen Algi (1882–1938). There is no freedom of panorama in Romania. The copyright term of the country is 70 years, and the image can be undeleted in 2042

A1Cafel (talk) 03:26, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt that my picture File:Palatul Telefoanelor - antennae etc.jpg shows enough of the architecture to be an issue. It's basically a picture of satellite dishes and antennae, which presumably are considered mainly to be practical objects rather than works of architecture (or any other visual art). - Jmabel ! talk 03:45, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Question about my picture File:Palatul Telefoanelor from Hotel Capitol 2002.jpg: while I took it mainly as a photo of Palatul Telefoanelor, there are quite a few other buildings in it. Are any others of these still in copyright? If not, I'd like to salvage a crop of what it shows of the east side of Calea Victoriei from that vantage point. - Jmabel ! talk 03:47, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- I've derived a separate File:Palatul Telefoanelor from Hotel Capitol 2002-major Gaussian blur for copyright reasons.jpg that I believe can be kept; please indicate if you think something further needs to be done there. The original can be deleted now and undeleted in 2042, at which point the derivative work will become redundant. - Jmabel ! talk 04:46, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
File:Casa Capșa, București.jpg barely shows Palatul Telefoanelor. I think it might be de minimis as it stands. If not, we could certainly put a Gaussian blur over it without diminishing the value of the photo. - Jmabel ! talk 03:49, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Similarly for File:Hotel Continental - Calea Victoriei.jpg. At worst, we could keep a crop showing just the Hotel Continental, but I think a Gaussian blur might be better. While the reproduction of the old National Theater in front of the Novotel is quite recent (2006), it is a rather faithful copy of a building that is long out of copyright, and I doubt it is copyrightable, so there is little other than Palatul Telefoanelor copyrightable in that photo. - Jmabel ! talk 03:53, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  - I've derived a separate File:Hotel Continental - Calea Victoriei-major Gaussian blur for copyright reasons.jpg that I believe can be kept; please indicate if you think something further needs to be done there. The original can be deleted now and undeleted in 2042, at which point the derivative work will become redundant. - Jmabel ! talk 05:26, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Sector 3, Bucharest, Romania - panoramio.jpg is a somewhat similar view, but enough of Palatul Telefoanelor is visible that it would definitely need a Gaussian blur or other concealment. - Jmabel ! talk 03:59, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  - I've derived a separate File:Sector 3, Bucharest, Romania - panoramio-major Gaussian blur for copyright reasons.jpg that I believe can be kept; please indicate if you think something further needs to be done there. The original can be deleted now and undeleted in 2042, at which point the derivative work will become redundant. (I belatedly realized: that's probably a bad file name, since this is nowhere near Sector 3. Probably both the original and the derivative should be renamed in parallel before deletion, with the new names noted here for 2042. I don't want to rename the original now because it is confusing to rename a file in the middle of a DR discussion.) - Jmabel ! talk 05:18, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'd also like to separately assess File:Palatul Telefoanelor rear.jpg (which I see is mine, though I don't recall taking it). Although Palatul Telefoanelor is its ostensible subject, it actually makes up very little of the picture. Are there other buildings here that raise issues? If not, a Gaussian blur over Palatul Telefoanelor would let us keep it - Jmabel ! talk 03:56, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- I've derived a separate File:Strada Matei Millo, 2006.jpg that I believe can be kept; please indicate if you think something further needs to be done there. The original can be deleted now and undeleted in 2042, at which point the derivative work will become redundant. - Jmabel ! talk 05:02, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It would probably be worth assessing if there are also others that have non-infringing content worth cropping into separate files. - Jmabel ! talk 04:03, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@A1Cafel: on each of the ones I've singled out, I'd appreciate your opinion. - Jmabel ! talk 04:03, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- @Jmabel: I remove File:Palatul Telefoanelor - antennae etc.jpg. Satellite dishes and antennae is not copyrighted, but I haven't nominated File:Casa Capșa, București.jpg because I believe it falls under de minimis. The remaining images seems difficult to fall under de minimis. I'd appreciate a crop/blur to save those images which are still potentially useful. --A1Cafel (talk) 04:09, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  - @A1Cafel: I believe I've addressed the issues for the images I discussed above, in each case by uploading a separate derivative work; please have a look and tell me if you think any of those are still problematic so I can address your further issues. - Jmabel ! talk 05:29, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Logo Kementerian Imigrasi dan Pemasyarakatan.jpg

This is not official logo yet, there are several logos that being selected to the final MesinKetik (talk) 04:42, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can the logos under consideration be hosted here? It's interesting to have a record of which logos were submitted, but not if there's a copyright problem with hosting them here. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:01, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:TrumporBiden2024.png

Questionable whether this is "the work of a computer algorithm or artificial intelligence and does not contain sufficient human authorship to support a copyright claim". Aside from where the training footage of Trump and Biden was drawn from, the AI isn't generating the whole of the screen: it's only generating two cut-outs of people, which are superimposed onto a static (and possibly human-authored) studio image. Belbury (talk) 09:04, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Deepfake videos can be harmful to the political process as this screenshot shows. No-one is likely to claim any copyright with it though, even if parts of it are derivative. The voices - trained on Trump and Biden speeches or similar - might well be classed as derivative but they are not present. Difficult, but if this one is deleted, does the Midjourney image linked to here have similar worries? Richard Nowell (talk) 17:44, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know what the process was for generating the Trump and Biden animations. If it was from an AI trained only on footage of a single debate, there may be copyright issues. If it was using much more general training data of what these two men look like, there presumably wouldn't be.

But the completely static studio background and desk foreground is the simpler concern. I don't see that we have any reason to think that it was AI-generated, just because the animations of Trump and Biden were. Belbury (talk) 19:46, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination Howardcorn33 (talk) 18:04, 4 January 2025 (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 in Category:Interior of Stadtbibliothek am Mailänder Platz

All of those are unfree, as there is no FOP for interiors in Germany.

h-stt !? 16:35, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Moin h-stt,

danke für die Info, ich muss jetzt mal die Mail von 2012 suchen, hatte extra um die Freigabe der Innenansichten gebeten, aber nicht weiter an das OTRS Team gesendet. Ich schaue mal, ob ich sie noch finde, ansonsten schreibe in die BIB noch mal an. Tschüß -- Ra Boe watt?? 07:45, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Moinh-stt,

thanks for the info, I have to look for the mail from 2012, had specifically asked for the release of the interior views, but did not send it to the OTRS team. I'll have a look if I can still find them, otherwise write to the BIB again. Bye -- Ra Boe watt??

You know, that you need a permission by the architect en:Eun Young Yi, not the library staff, right? --h-stt !? 16:18, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ich sehe hier nichts Schützenswertes. Da hat ein Architekt einfach nur seine Arbeit gemacht, nichts Besonderes. --Ralf Roleček 16:57, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nun sah ich aus so, aber ich werde zusammen dem dem Team des OE in Stuttgart nächste Woche Freitag ein Text an den Architekten verfassen, ich war auch davon ausgegangen, warum auch immer, das bei öffentlichen Gebäude eine erweiterte Panoramafreiheit gilt, wie ich auf den Trichter gekommen bin, weiß ich nicht mehr, daher hatte ich auch nur die Bib angeschrieben. Ich hoffe jetzt nur das die Bilder nicht so schnell gelöscht werden, damit wir Zeit habe auf die Antwort des Eun Young Yi zu warten bzw. ich suche verzweifelt nach einer Vorlage (nicht die Standartvorlage) wie man einem Architekten es schmackhaft machen kann, die Bilder frei zu geben. Der gleiche Architekt hat ja auch den neuen Landtag in Hannover entworfen und da wäre es schick zwei Fliegen mit einer Klappe zu schlagen. ;) Tschüß -- Ra Boe watt?? 09:10, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Viel Glück! Bigbossfarin (talk) 10:57, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nachtrag: Wir bitte um etwas mehr Geduld, da wir auf die Antworten warten. Es wäre viel Arbeit alle Bilder wieder herstellen zu müssen.

Addendum: We ask for a little more patience, as we are waiting for the answers. It would take a lot of work to recover all the images. Tschüß -- Ra Boe watt?? 19:35, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hallo allerseits; bin im Kontakt mit Herrn Yi. Bitte noch etwas Geduld. --Mussklprozz (talk) 17:08, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Mussklprozz and Raboe001: Any progress? --Leyo 09:21, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ja der Architekt informiert sich im Punkt freie Lizenz und was sie bedeutet und meldet sich wieder bei uns. -- Ra Boe watt?? 09:40, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

yes the architect informs himself in the point of free license and what it means and will contact us again. -- Ra Boe watt?? 09:40, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tried to reach him on the phone this week. He is in Corea at the moment. Will call him again mid of next week. --Mussklprozz (talk) 11:34, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination - files can be undeleted when a valid permission arrives. It's a pity that we have to delete the files for now, these are high quality pictures. --Jcb (talk) 14:14, 11 February 2018 (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 in Category:Interior of Stadtbibliothek am Mailänder Platz

Beautiful architecture, but its architect Eun Young Yi is still alive and the library is located in Germany where there is no FoP for interior views and a standard of life 70 years.

Paradise Chronicle (talk) 23:22, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 08:28, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files in Category:Interior of Stadtbibliothek am Mailänder Platz

No freedom of panorama for interiors. Permission from architect Eun Young Yi necessary. In the past, there have been attempts to get such from him for a large number of photos, but it was not given, and all those photos had to be deleted. Same arguments applies for newly uploaded images thereafter.

Mussklprozz (talk) 09:49, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep most of these. There are very few if any substantive architectural elements shown here. There are simple windows, hallways and bookshelves, most of which are not sufficiently creative to copyright. These are only de minimis elements of the larger architectural work. IronGargoyle (talk) 02:15, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The elements shown in the images listed above are by no means de minimis, but integral parts of the architectural design which took months to develop and which won the price in the public competition for that building. The design of book shelves is carefully chosen. It follows an integrated overall design that took months to develop. The design of the metre-high hall in the lower part of the building also follows a creative idea. The minimalist, cubist design can be misleading if you don't know the building. Instead of uninformed judgement about parts being de minimis, read this critique or this one or other competent reviews that you can find on the internet. – And one more thing: not only US-copyright applies here, but German copyright as well. – Cheers, Mussklprozz (talk) 17:01, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A handful of these images (File:Stadtbibliothek am Mailänder Platz (10941267463).jpg, for example) might show sufficient creative details, but to say that all these do is utter nonsense. If you are going to bring up national differences, you should also note that German copyright has a particularly high threshold of originality for applied arts (see COM:UA). IronGargoyle (talk) 17:18, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your assignment of this work of architecture to applied arts is utter nonsense. The source which is given in COM:UA refers so industrial products, thus being off topic. German copyright explicitly lists Baukunst (architecture) in the same category as Fine Arts, music, literature etc. (Urheberrechtsgesetz (UrhG) §2) Furthermore, the same section of the UrhG does not require that an artwork must show much detail. Instead, it requires that the work be a persönliche geistige Schöpfung (personal intellectual creation). The big hallway on the ground floor, which is shown on a considerable part of the images, is certainly such a personal intellectual creation: The room's size and form, the arrangement of the windows, the fountain in the middle and most of all: the huge impressive void of the white room follow an obvious architectural idea. And so do the simple, but harmonic and carefully chosen design of the bookshelves, the room design in the basement etc. Mussklprozz (talk) 22:44, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as already said, no architectural presence in most of the files.

, this could be any library. -- Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton^m 21:45, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Obvious case of de minimis, IMO. Darwin ^Ahoy! 17:58, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@DarwIn German de minimis as defined by existing court case files is apparently less liberal than French or Estonian ones (French: accessory/incidental, Estonian: "not the main subject"). De minimis cannot be invoked to an image if censoring out the copyrighted piece of architecture or artwork negatively affects the entire image to the point the viewers/readers will immediately notice that censorship. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 21:45, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@JWilz12345 I'm not so highly familiar with German law indeed to the point of detect such nuances, but your explanation makes sense, and I defer to your expertise in the subject. But I'm puzzled how empty walls, common book shelves and what seems to be a very common staircase can attract any copyright, even in Germany. Darwin ^Ahoy! 22:01, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@DarwIn German de minimis is not of my expertise tbh, but I learned it from Rosenzweig, in some discussions here concerning interiors of train stations as well as a discussion on English Wikivoyage regarding de minimis comparison (Philippine vs. French vs. German de minimis) as applied in an image of Rizal Park in Manila, the Philippines. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 22:07, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@JWilz12345 @Paradise Chronicle says below the space is recognizable, could be the disposition of the furniture and other architectural elements that makes the whole thing protected by copyright. In any case, I defer to that evaluation. Darwin ^Ahoy! 22:16, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep simple utilitarian layout, no architectural input to protect. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:26, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No FoP in Germany for interior spaces. Images are from an identifiable piece of architecture of well-known architect. COM:UA, as explained well by Mussklprozz, should not apply. The keep arguments are personal preferences which should not have a say in a DR. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 05:41, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Statue of Sarah Winnemucca.webp

According to https://www.aoc.gov/explore-capitol-campus/art/sarah-winnemucca-statue the sculpture was given in 2005. The author is the Benjamin Victor, born in 1979. The photo might be in the public domain if it was taken by a federal employee, but the sculpture is not necessarily in the public domain. Donating an artwork cannot be considered work for hire. Günther Frager (talk) 10:12, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, It says the artist is benjamin victor, not the author, the author is still the architect of the capitol.

this is also common for the other statue links as well:

https://www.aoc.gov/explore-capitol-campus/art/norman-borlaug-statue

https://www.aoc.gov/explore-capitol-campus/art/johnny-cash-statue Chemboy513 (talk) 16:25, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Budd Dwyer Live Suicide.gif

No source or author specified, no evidence of this press conference footage being prepared by a US government employee. Enwiki has a still described as being from a "copyrighted television program". Belbury (talk) 11:14, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:HerveDevilleChef.jpg

Suspected copyright violation: claimed own work 26 November 2024, but a cropped image has been published previously: https://www.hospitalityandcateringnews.com/2024/08/chef-herve-deville-joins-mistress-of-mayfair-as-directeur-culinaire/ MKFI (talk) 11:19, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files uploaded by Mundopress (talk · contribs)

A lot of low-res press images of politicians, some (1, 2) showing different in-image watermark credits. The second of those images also exists online in a less cropped version at https://diariorombe.es/magazine/guinea-ecuatorial-controla-aguas-de-valencia-por-medio-del-clan-bokoko/.

If the user "Mundopress" is a press organisation wishing to release its own previously-published content under a free licence, they should do so on an official website, or permission should be sent to Commons:Volunteer Response Team.

Belbury (talk) 11:24, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Franciszek Szwankowski przy grobie nieznanego żołnierza w Łodzi.jpg

This file was initially tagged by Piastu as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: Probably not 'own work' from 2023-11-01 – depicted F. Szwankowski died in 1936. May be public domain. PD-Poland. Yann (talk) 11:49, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Correct, meets PD-Poland. --RAN (talk) 15:16, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Could you please fix the date, source, and author? Thanks, Yann (talk) 09:19, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Nicole Luisoni

These images need to be deleted because the model requested the photographer to delete them from their original source (Flickr) and are no longer in the public domain. --Anyulrivas (talk) 11:47, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep First, the photographer and flickr user licensed this photos as CC-BY 2.0 (the "authorisation of the photographer"), attested by flickreview, so, no, this photos are freely licensed, as CC licenses are irrevocable, and so the photographer can stop distributing them, but cannot stop others, that have used them under that license, from keep them in "public domain" (not public domain by CC but the argument stands). This photos were made in a nude photography workshop in Barcelona ("Taller de fotografía de desnudo, Barcelona" in spanish), made with a nude photography model, as per this context. Second, this is a case of a model posing, willingly to a workshop of nude photography, not of some sneaky photographer. Also, keep before per Commons:Deletion_requests/Archive/2023/06/19#Files_in_Category:Nicole_Luisoni. Tm (talk) 17:37, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm the original photographer of the session and was asked by the model to remove those photos for personal reasons. She no longer works as a model and wants to delete all trace of her in such role. I believe she already contacted by email asking the deletion of the photos already. Please advise if any further action is needed from our side. Anyulrivas (talk) 11:39, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I believe here applies the Commons:Photographs of identifiable people/en-us#The right of privacy policy. Anyulrivas (talk) 11:58, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I ask you to please remove the photos as the model has claimed it's having an impact on here personal life and dignity. https://foundation.wikimedia.org/wiki/Resolution:Media_about_living_people Anyulrivas (talk) 12:17, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Anyulrivas if it is having such an impact on a model life, then, maybe, the original photographer shouldnt have slapped the name and (possibly other data) about the model, in the first place. Yet, if it is really having an impact, that could be easily solved by changing the filenames of this model photos to something non personal, albeit keeping that info that this photos were taking by a boudoir photographer (the name of the photographer? and were taking during a nude photography workshop in Barcelona ("Taller de fotografía de desnudo, Barcelona" in spanish). Tm (talk) 20:08, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your consideration. I'll modify the filename so the model name no longer appears there. Some models prefer to use an alias, and others prefer to use their real name. This is the first time this happened to me with all the models I worked with so far. I have no problem with keeping the photographer info and the context they were taken. Anyulrivas (talk) 12:32, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Until this is close, depending on how it is closed, do not remove or change any info in an ad hoc way or open more deletion requests, as you have been trying to do. Tm (talk) 13:02, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all of Category:Nicole Luisoni and its content. Wikidata too. (As my comment at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Nicole Luisoni (52524729432).jpg)

It seems credible that the model here has retired and they are trying to remove their footprint of images. Yes, the licensing here is irrevocable and so Commons is entitled to continue to host these. However that is not the same as Commons being required to host them. Nor is it part of Commons' role to be needlessly vindictive to any model.

Removing these entirely from the web is unlikely to be successful and certainly not easy. But it's not our job to make it any harder. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:20, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A better solution, as the deletion requester as already agreed with above, given that the CC licenses are irrevocable and this files were all kept previously per Commons:Deletion_requests/Archive/2023/06/19#Files_in_Category:Nicole_Luisoni, as i said above, if it is really having an impact, could be easily solved by changing the filenames of this model photos to something non personal, albeit keeping that info that this photos were taking by a boudoir photographer (the name of the photographer? and were taking during a nude photography workshop in Barcelona ("Taller de fotografía de desnudo, Barcelona" in spanish). The category in Commons and renaming to anonymised filenames can be processed easily but the Wikidata item would need a separate, on Wikidata, process. Tm (talk) 17:19, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please let me know what I can do from my side to help. I'm already renaming the photos to mitigate the impact. Anyulrivas (talk) 10:41, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep No valid reason for deletion. Support renaming Юрий Д.К 11:15, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per courtesy as the deletion has also been requested by subject in ticket:2024120410011083 and the photos are unused in Wikimedia. Ankry (talk) 00:16, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. I have read Ticket:2024120510007783. I think we can assume consent of the model to the photograph at the time it was taken, and that sort of thing isn't going to be the reason for deletion here (and, if the issue was merely naming, these could be renamed and old names suppressed).
That being said, I have a larger concern that the release was not intentional, and this is backed up by the fact that the image metadata for each of these has a copyright status of TODOS LOS DERECHOS RESERVADOS (i.e. "All Rights Reserved"). I'm quite a bit skeptical that accidentally ticking a box on Flickr actually creates a valid perpetual copyright license that can be relied on after the re-user of the image is informed that the release was not intentionally granted when the copyright holder explicitly took steps to inform the re-user of this (though I agree that they'd probably see a re-user held harmless for use prior to that point, and any use where they were unaware of the unintentional nature of the release).
In short, I think that we should delete under the precautionary principle, as I don't think it's responsible to continue to host this and have these re-used based on the circumstances of the release. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 06:26, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:01910 Elbing-Königsberg.jpg

no permission for cc-0, no reason to assume pd-old Krd 13:31, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If deleted, please replace with de:Datei:Elbing-Königsberg1910.jpg on dewiki (where de:User:Wdwdbot has changed every usage to the Commons file). --тнояsтеn ⇔ 18:05, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Da drehen sich aber die Löscher wieder einmal im Kreis! Хрюша ^?? 11:44, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The uploader mention as source a book printed in 1910. It is a clear reason to assume pd-old. And nobody may assume that such a type and style of a map is younger than 100 years! Хрюша ^?? 11:44, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:NEW-PP-THA.jpg

Can't be own work, as this is a sample specimen created by the Department of Consular Affairs. But might it be PD? Paul_012 (talk) 14:31, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Bq-icon-v2.png

This company logo most definitely is copyrighted. Malik Nursultan B (talk) 14:44, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:งานมหกรรมหนังสือระดับชาติ ครั้งที่ 29 - Book Expo Thailand 2024 - img 01.jpg

Primary focus of the photo is a photograph of another image (the cardboard cutout) which is of undetermined copyright status. Likely non-free. RachelTensions (talk) 15:14, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, COM:FOP Thailand says that A drawing, painting, construction, engraving, moulding, carving, lithographing, photographing, cinematographing, video broadcasting or any similar act of an artistic work, except an architectural work, which is openly located in a public place shall not be deemed an infringement of copyright in the artistic work. This doesn't mention that the work has to be situated permanently, so I think that a display in a book expo is probably fine. Di (they-them) (talk) 16:46, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Niklas Wykman (official portrait) in 2022.jpg

Not free. "Copyright holder Ninni Andersson/Regeringskansliet" Ariam (talk) 15:50, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files in Category:Body worn video

These recordings were not made with a body camera. At approximately the 1:10 mark, the shadow of Lt. Colonel Massas holding a smartphone is visible, suggesting that the video was filmed with his intentional input. As a result, the video does not meet the criteria for {{PD-automated}}.

Zaxxon0 (talk) 15:56, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per precautionary principle because the videos appear to be copyrighted and there is no free license. Streamline8988 (talk) 01:47, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:WI-24-AD-Pres.svg

Unsourced and, as far as I can tell, literally made up. Spot-checking the Wausau district confirms it's, at minimum, wrong. AveryTheComrade (talk) 16:27, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All of the data in this map comes from Redistricter. I see now that I forgot to source (my apologies) but I do not see why Redistricter would be erroneous in this regard Dancingtudorqueen (talk) 18:24, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redistricter isn't a reliable source and, as I said, checking some of the closer districts confirms it's incorrect. AveryTheComrade (talk) 09:22, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Redistricter guy here. Found this on Google. Anyways, if WI reports election results by district you should use those instead. But if not, then the results are going to differ by a decent amount depending on what source you use. Just depends on how you disaggregate and reaggregate election data. Redistricter has its own method and other sources will use something else. Even within Redistricter the results will vary depending on the geography you used. Colin dm (talk) 15:13, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:WI-24-SD-Pres.svg

Unsourced and, as far as I can tell, literally made up. Spot-checking the Wausau district on the Assembly map uploaded by this user confirms it's, at minimum, wrong. AveryTheComrade (talk) 16:28, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All of the data in this map comes from Redistricter. I see now that I forgot to source (my apologies) but I do not see why Redistricter would be erroneous in this regard Dancingtudorqueen (talk) 18:25, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Messarink.jpg

no evidence of commons licensing available at source website SecretName101 (talk) 17:24, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Cheelexterior.jpg

no evidence of a commons license at source website SecretName101 (talk) 17:25, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Clarksongoldenknigths.png

no evidence of commons license SecretName101 (talk) 17:26, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Victor Adler.jpg

It is bad and will never be needed again. Now replaced with its original, Thanks to the original uploader. File:Victor Adler (ca 1900).jpg Oalexander (talk) 17:34, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete dupe. Note: still is use. Taylor 49 (talk) 00:11, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Uploaded here in 2006, used by various articles during that time and still COM:INUSE. No need for deletion. --Rosenzweig τ 07:22, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The "need" to delete this file is approximately equally strong as the "need" to keep commons online. When the affected articles are switched to the better file, this one can and should be deleted. Taylor 49 (talk) 19:28, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Flag of the Azerbaijan Soviet Socialist Republic.png

This file was initially tagged by Adinar0012 as duplicate (duplicate) and the most recent rationale was: File:Flag of the Azerbaijan Soviet Socialist Republic (1952–1991).svg - Not an exact duplicate (colors), but also unused The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 18:06, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Robin Roberts baseball plaque.jpg

Derivative work. See COM:CRT/US#Artworks and sculptures. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 18:49, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Per COM:HIRTLE, works first published in the United States between 1978 through 28 February 1989 are not copyrighted unless they have notice, which this doesn't appear to have. Is the argument that this was merely displayed and not published at the time of the individual's induction? — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 05:14, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Copyright Act of 1976 changed the definition of "publication" in a way that probably prevents this from falling into the public domain. See COM:PACUSA#1978 to March 1, 1989. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 20:32, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In light of this,

Delete. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 14:30, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Roberts was inducted into the Hall of Fame in 1976,[2], so presumably this was installed before 1978 and {{PD-US-no notice}} can be used?—Bagumba (talk) 05:18, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It literally talks about 1978 as in the past right on the plaque. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 00:54, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, I mistakenly assumed this was for the Baseball Hall Of Fame, but plaque was for his Philadelphia Phillies Wall of Fame induction in 1978.[3] —Bagumba (talk) 17:24, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not in PD as installed in 1978 per above. COM:FOP US does not apply for public 3D artwork.—Bagumba (talk) 17:32, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Google Gemini screenshot.png

Copyrighted screenshot. Even if any one element is not copyrightable, having them together in an arrangement rises above the threshold of originality. See en:Look and feel, which is a copyright restriction. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 18:53, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment there are many other files like this image on commons that also should be deleted, per this nomination. Sebbog13 (talk) 04:38, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep per COM:TOO US and COM:INUSE. I can't conceive of how this could possibly be over COM:TOO US, considering what isn't. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:41, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The website says "© 2022 - 2024 TimiLodeOnDeviantArt", but if it's a faithful reproduction it is in the public domain, is there a source that states that this is the 16th century flag? Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 20:32, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Ly Samath: , Please list the source that explains that this flag is a faithful reproduction, otherwise it will be deleted because the DeviantArt source claims copyright ©️. By the way, welcome, I am here to help so feel free to ask for help or advice. I love seeing new Champa uploads and hope that this flag can stay, I am just asking for a better source, then we can change the licensing to PD (public domain). — --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 20:34, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On Wikipedia you listed the source "Islam in Champa and the Making of Factitious History. - Published online by Cambridge University Press: 09 August 2017. - STEPHEN G. HAW", I can't access this document 📄 because of a paywall, could you please verify the passage from here where it describes the flag? --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 20:37, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The source is own work, with an EXIF. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:50, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Glukhoe Lake (Sestroretsk) Cottage 2018.jpg

This file was initially tagged by Komarof as Dw no source since (dw no source since) A.Savin 22:56, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The source is own work, though with a questionable EXIF. But that's not a deletion reason per se, per COM:DR. What's the real deletion reason? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:52, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Fragment map of the surroundings St Petersburg 1890.jpg

This file was initially tagged by Komarof as Dw no source since (dw no source since) A.Savin 22:57, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A source is given, and if it's an 1890 map, it's presumably in the public domain. Komarof, please take more care in stating the real reasons for your deletion requests. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:53, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Glukhoe Lake (Sestroretsk) 2020.jpg

This file was initially tagged by Komarof as Dw no source since (dw no source since) A.Savin 22:58, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The source is "Own work." What's the real deletion reason? You believe it's not own work. OK. State why. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:54, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Nakonana (talk) 01:36, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Deletion requests/2024/12/03

December 3

Files uploaded by FunnyMath (talk · contribs)

Files in Category:Palatul Telefoanelor

Files in Category:Interior of Stadtbibliothek am Mailänder Platz

Files in Category:Interior of Stadtbibliothek am Mailänder Platz

Files in Category:Interior of Stadtbibliothek am Mailänder Platz

Files uploaded by Mundopress (talk · contribs)

Category:Nicole Luisoni

Files in Category:Body worn video

Navigation menu

Search