Commons:Deletion requests/2023/11/03

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
2 November 2023
4 November 2023
Deletion requests on 3 November 2023

November 3[edit]

File:PA DefayEurochamp Leroy 694.jpg[edit]

The file is not an own work, it is attributed to Thomas Lodin from Aquashot/ASP in EXIF. However, the uploader earlier provided VRTS permission for other files owned by that ASP, see File:Marlon Lipke.jpg and File:Asp logo 2bleus.png. So it is possible that he was authorized to upload this picture too, as well as File:RB FioravantiEurochamp Leroy 001.jpg. Andrei Romanenko (talk) 01:47, 3 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[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:Max and Anna Blumenfeld-Grunwald.jpg[edit]

German photograph that dates in the range of 1925 to 1936. Source is a family photo album so it may have been unpublished until recently. Abzeronow (talk) 15:51, 2 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Kept: Closing duplicate entry. --The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 10:29, 3 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Max and Anna Blumenfeld-Grunwald.jpg[edit]

This file was initially tagged by AntiCompositeBot as no license (User:AntiCompositeBot/NoLicense/tag) RAN (talk) 02:58, 3 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  •  Keep License added. While the image may have resided in a family album it appears to have been taken by a professional photographer and been made public when it was given to the sitter. The extremely narrow depth of field points to a professional photographer. --RAN (talk) 03:08, 3 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:EU.ro by Klaus Iohannis (cover).jpg[edit]

This is my personal work which I don't want here on Wikipedia anymore. Wikipedia doesn't have any rights to keep my work anymore after it has blocked me. Rosenborg BK Fan (talk) 07:37, 3 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Keep There are multiple warnings and disclaimers before you upload a photo stating you release all rights to the image irrevocably; this means you understand the image is no longer yours alone. You can't reverse a PD declaration, and that goes for all your contributed images under PD and CC. None of these are getting removed. Nate • (chatter) 00:47, 4 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Unimog 5000 Brazilian Marine Corps.jpg[edit]

Brazilian government portal has a CC-BY-ND license which is not allowed (https://www.gov.br/pt-br). MKFI (talk) 08:01, 3 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Pasanella Rocking Chair.jpg[edit]

Appears to be taken from https://www.si.edu/object/rocking-chair%3Achndm_1992-26-1 where there is a note abiut usage conditions. I cannto determine that it is licensed for onward use. The uploader will wish to clarify this to COM:VRT and note that COM:PCP applies. 🇺🇦 Timtrent 🇺🇦 talk to me 🇺🇦 08:02, 3 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Vlm-s50-brazil.png[edit]

Brazilian government portal has a CC-BY-ND license which is not allowed (https://www.gov.br/pt-br). MKFI (talk) 08:04, 3 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:ドンキで売ってた焼き芋のお酒 - 1.jpg[edit]

Het flesontwerp is auteursrechtelijk beschermd.[1] Zie ook com:PACKAGE.

  1. ↑ twitter.com

--トトト (talk) 09:02, 3 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


File:ChildrenHiroshima2.JPG[edit]

Close-up of a work of art (the cranes arranged into a 'painting') The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 09:22, 3 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Note: This was deleted as part of Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Children's Peace Monument and undeleted after a request by Opencooper on my talk page. I'm not convinced that any of the arrangements of cranes are okay to keep (because they're artistic arrangements), but this one certainly stands out from the other two. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 09:24, 3 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    They might be “artistic arrangements”, but each crane was made by a child trying to convey a message to the world. The main purpose of every thing at Hiroshima is to communicate the “never again” message. They beautifully merge it with the zenbazuru. Every one expressing the wish of a thousand children, the same wish. It’s both personal and collective, and it’s a gift for the world and the “spirits”. 2400:2411:C4C1:9000:8F6:844C:AB1F:5EAB 15:23, 3 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Keep Thanks Squirrel for undeleting and starting a separate deletion request. You're right that this picture stands out compared to other strings of origami. I'm presuming that the part of this image that's in contention is the rectangular arrangement in the center right of the image. The surface of it contains what looks like the Chinese character 「祈」 ("prayer"), with a striped background. This doesn't look any more complex to me than many of the flags we have on Commons. Non-calligraphic Chinese characters are just as uncopyrightable as regular writing. The background is just different stripes of colors. The design being comprised of origami cranes doesn't change that it's a simple design. Opencooper (talk) 14:40, 9 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:232A0672.jpg[edit]

This file was initially tagged by DesiBoy101 as Speedy (SD) and the most recent rationale was: F10 (may be in scope) Wdwd (talk) 09:26, 3 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Keep Description and title could be improved, but if this is the state minister presenting some award, it's clearly in scope. --PaterMcFly (talk) 12:47, 3 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Haja Mohideen bersama menantu.jpg[edit]

not free image/copy vio 2001:E68:5423:AD29:38F1:B244:F05E:488 09:58, 3 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Russia stamp 1999 № 541.jpg[edit]

Имеется дубликат в более высоком разрешении - File:Russia_stamp_I.Talkov_1999_2r.jpg MasterRus21thCentury (talk) 10:30, 3 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Разрешение, может быть, и высокое, но качество хуже - достаточно посмотреть на лицо Талькова и сравнить. Engelberthumperdink (talk) 15:43, 3 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Engelberthumperdink В такой ситуации скорее всего необходимо обращение в Графическую мастерскую, чтобы при высоком разрешении файла оставалось высокое качество. MasterRus21thCentury (talk) 17:45, 3 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
А что мешает существовать на Викискладе двум вариантам изображения одного и того же произведения? Engelberthumperdink (talk) 18:21, 3 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Files uploaded by Ushiwaka1189 (talk · contribs)[edit]

The latest round of uploads by a sock of GMatteotti. As before, these ca. 1940s German photos are claimed to be anoymous and therefore in the public domain in Germany. It's quite doubtful if the photos are actually "anonymous" in a legal sense in Germany, as we don't know when, how and where they were first published, if that publication was uncredited and if the photographer was not publicly known otherwise (as required by German law). All we have is blog and web sources, no contemporary sources of the photo.

But even if the "anonymous" claim were true and the photos were published right away in ca. 1940, they would still have been protected on the URAA date for Germany in 1996, and the US copyright (until the end of 2035) would have been restored. The files should be deleted.

Rosenzweig τ 10:51, 3 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ok for deletion. 79.20.12.95 11:23, 3 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Keep The URAA date would not matter, the Office of Alien Property Custodian confiscated or invalidated all Reich era patents, copyrights, and trademarks in the US. I believe that ended on May 13, 1966. --RAN (talk) 22:40, 3 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No. Not true. As I wrote in others DR already, that only applies to a small number of German works from that period.
Per en:Wikipedia:Non-US copyrights#Wartime copyrights, “Any copyrights that were "ever owned or administered by the Alien Property Custodian" were not restored if the restored copyright would be held by "a government or an instrumentality thereof".” There is no indication that the copyright of these photographs was held by a government. And per en:Wikipedia:Non-US copyrights#Germany, “A number of German cases indicate that the copyright in images or graphic works remains with the author, even if the works were produced for official use. All of these German copyrights were extended in period to 70 years pma before the date of restoration, and so the US copyrights have been restored.”
And due to the nature of US copyrights, these photographs most likely weren't even copyrighted in the US at the time, so there was nothing to "confiscate". There was a copyright treaty in force between Germany and the US, but any German author / rights holder would have needed to register a copyright just like their US counterparts. Per [1] (section Copyrights, Trademarks, and Patents), “only selected copyrights and trademarks were vested, [but] "all patents of nationals of enemy and enemy-occupied countries" were vested”. Vesting being what this process was called in the WW II era. Hitler's Mein Kampf was among the works which had their copyright vested, along with works by a number of European authors and composers, many of them French or Italian. The claim that the Office of Alien Property Custodian confiscated "Reich period" copyrights in the USA (or rather vested than confiscated) is true for works like Mein Kampf of Friedrich Beilstein's Handbuch der organischen Chemie, but as can be read in the linked article, this certainly does not apply to all German works as implied. So there was no impediment to the URAA restoring this photograph's US copyright in 1996. --Rosenzweig τ 01:00, 4 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If it's so, you can delete them. 95.239.125.208 10:33, 4 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ok for deletion. 193.207.150.170 14:11, 4 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • @Clindberg: I am pinging Clindberg, who is well read on international copyright law. Rights were restored to named authors (except Hitler), anonymous works had no one to restore them to, and remained exempt from copyright in the USA. --RAN (talk) 01:18, 5 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Where do you get that claim that "Rights were restored to named authors" (only)? None of our URAA pages say so. The country tables at en:Wikipedia:Non-US copyrights even explicitly mention anonymous works several times. And how do you even know that these images are "anonymous"? As I wrote above, "It's quite doubtful if the photos are actually "anonymous" in a legal sense in Germany, as we don't know when, how and where they were first published, if that publication was uncredited and if the photographer was not publicly known otherwise (as required by German law)." --Rosenzweig τ 01:39, 6 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You can delete them if it's necessary. 193.207.149.98 18:43, 5 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You can delete them for copyright violation. 79.17.233.177 09:10, 13 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Puente Tlemcen.jpg[edit]

Very low quality, probably the original version is copyrighted. Riad Salih (talk) 10:58, 3 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:EDEN-BRUSHED-NICKLE-36-Ceiling-mounted-Brushed-Nickle-Complete-LED-Music-Shower-Set-Rainfall-Waterfall-Mist-Spray-Water-Column-Large-Body-Jets-Smart-Living-and-Techn 672x672.webp[edit]

Spam link in description; obviously not "Own work" because images stolen from a page on AliExpress (which I cannot link due to the spam filter) 89.177.54.189 11:17, 3 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Files uploaded by Dnvlio[edit]

Dnvlio (talk · contribs) uploaded several flags he invented himself. Useless for education:

— Redboston 12:00, 3 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Fatwa d’Oran.jpg[edit]

This is a work by w:es:Pedro Longás Bartibás (died in 1968). It would be protected unitl 2039 per Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Spain. HeminKurdistan (talk) 13:21, 3 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Deputado Marcelo do Seu Dino.jpg[edit]

pt: Vide Commons:Deletion requests/File:André Ceciliano Presidente da Alerj.png e dezenas de outros semelhantes: segundo o levantamento do status de direitos autorais de imagens publicadas por governos e assembleias legislativas estaduais do Brasil, imagens publicadas pela ALERJ (Assembleia Legislativa do Rio de Janeiro), como esta, não podem ser incluídas no Commons porque não são disponibilizadas sob uma licença livre. Além disso, esta imagem nem está realmente no link alegado como fonte. // en: according to the survey on the copyright status of images published by state governments and legislative assemblies of Brazil, images published by ALERJ (Rio de Janeiro legislative assembly), like this one, cannot be included in Commons due to not being disponibilized under a free license. This one isn't even actually on the link claimed to be the source. Solon 26.125 13:22, 3 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

On the same situation, and uploaded by the same user, are File:Dep. Geraldo Moreira.jpg, File:Zito 2008.gif, File:Deputado Dica.webp and File:José Camilo Zito (PP).jpg (in the link, but attributed as Divulgação/Alerj). Plus, File:Dep. Alexandre Cardoso.png is is copyright violation, its source states All rights reserved at the bottom of the source website. Solon 26.125 13:27, 3 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:En-an.oga[edit]

File:En-an.ogg file available.so applied to delete. -Info-farmer (talk) 13:23, 3 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Files in Category:Sant’Ildefonso (Milan)[edit]

Unfortunately there's no FOP in Italy and the architect of this building, Carlo De Carli, died in 1999. So these images are copyrighted until at least 2070.

Adamant1 (talk) 16:12, 3 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It appears that Ruthven has made some questionable calls when it comes to DRs related to Italy to say the least and them restoring those images seems like another one. Although I won't lose any sleep over it if the images are kept, but still, I'm at least of the opinion that they should still be deleted as COPYVIO regardless of Ruthven restoring them last time. --Adamant1 (talk) 15:53, 4 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Files in Category:Via dei Giardini 7 (Milan)[edit]

Unfortunately there's no FOP in Italy and the architect of this building, Carlo De Carli, died in 1999. So these images are copyrighted until at least 2070.

Adamant1 (talk) 16:14, 3 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It seems like Ruthven has made some bad calls when it comes to DRs related to Italy in the past. So at least IMO the images should be deleted regardless of if they were previously restored. Otherwise I'd be interested to know what legal basis there is for the copyright to transfer over to multiple generations of family. Maybe Italy is an exception, but the last time I checked it only transfers to immediate family members like children and spouses, not grandchildren, and there's no reason it would have expired in this specific case. --Adamant1 (talk) 16:04, 4 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well, in that case it would be in PD though, if no member of the family has the copyright... Friniate (talk) 16:08, 4 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I said the grandson wouldn't have the copyright, not that no member of the family does. I'm sure you get the difference. Anyway, baring any evidence to the contrary I assume his immediate family members like a spouse or children would own the copyright. --Adamant1 (talk) 16:38, 4 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Anyway, article 115 of the italian copyright law speaks generically of "heirs", among which according to the italian succession laws can be included also grandchildren. So yes, he may be the copyright holder, as far as we know. Friniate (talk) 10:26, 5 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Ruthven: Friniate had already pinged you in the message I was responding to. So I assumed you were already aware of the conversation. It's kind of hard to sneak around the back of someone that has already been alerted they are being discussed. --Adamant1 (talk) 15:52, 6 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


File:Chanteuse Fidèle Lagnon.jpg[edit]

Possible copyvio: The model is marked as the author, From Facebook CoffeeEngineer (talk) 16:29, 3 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Files in Category:San Matteo (Luceto, Albisola Superiore)[edit]

Unfortunately there's no FOP in Italy and although I couldn't find any information about who the architect of this building is, they clearly haven't been dead for more then 70 since it was built in the 1993. So these images are copyrighted until an undetermined date.

Adamant1 (talk) 16:32, 3 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This is a photo of an Italian cultural asset participating in the Wiki Loves Monuments 2015 competition. See permission details. wiki-ID: 07A1660008 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bubici (talk • contribs) 17:21, 3 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Bubici: I moved your comment since you placed it above the DR. Can you please sign your comments next time? As to the "permission", according to Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Italy the copyright of works created on behalf of "cultural bodies" lapses back to the original creator after two years. Although it's not clear if that covers churches to begin with, assuming it does that means the church wouldn't have the right to allow Wiki Loves Monuments to take photographs of the building in the first place. Since it was built in 1993. So the "permission" isn't valid. At least not as far as we are concerned. Again though, that's contingent on churches owning the copyright as "cultural bodies" to begin with. But the images should be deleted as COPYVIO either way. --Adamant1 (talk) 17:29, 3 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you for your interest in the churches of Albisola Superiore which have been participating in the WLM competition for some years now as the Curia has authorized the possibility of taking photos. The church of San Matteo was not built in 1993 but many years ago. However, if you decide to delete them, you should also delete all the churches that participated in the WLM competition in Italy years ago. However, I asked the person responsible for the WLM competition to participate in the discussion.
Hi,
Bubici Bubici (talk) 09:49, 4 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Keep As we can see here, in 2016 the municipality asked to the owners and copyright holders of other buildings within the municipality to give the authorization to photograph the monuments and using these photos with a CC-BY license. Here we can see that the diocese of Savona and Noli (owner of the buildings) gave indeed these authorizations. Of course it would be much better if we had the letter written directly by the diocese and not only a document of the municipality citing it, so if @Bubici: or other users could provide them then we could get rid of any remaining doubt.--Friniate (talk) 13:44, 4 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That's well and good, but the law is pretty clear that the copyright reverts back to the original artist after two years in cases of "public cultural bodies." If we assume that applies to the diocese then they wouldn't have been able to authorize people to take pictures of the building because they weren't the copyright holders since the building was more then 2 years old at the time. The original architect would have needed to give their permission, and they didn't. So these images are clearly COPYVIO. It seems like you really want to have it both ways where the government owns the copyright to works made on their behalf for 20 years but then it doesn't lapse back to the original creator after 2 in cases of "cultural bodies." You don't get to just pick and choose which laws apply or which don't when it results in the outcome you want. --Adamant1 (talk) 16:16, 4 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The law doesn't say that and you perfectly know that since I've already explained you what the article 29 really says a number of times. Please, stop making up new non existent articles, a building is not an essay. Friniate (talk) 16:19, 4 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
And what has the government to do with the copyright of a church??? Again, you are just trying to confuse the closing admin with nonsense claims, please stop that. Friniate (talk) 16:19, 4 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yeah it does say that. According to the guidelines, which as you know full well is based on article 11 and 29 of the law, "National, provincial and municipal administrations are entitled to copyright on works created and published under their name and on their behalf and expense, as are private non-profit entities, academies and other public cultural bodies.[633/1941 art. 11] This copyright lasts for 20 years, or for 2 years for academies and other public cultural bodies, after which the rights revert to the author." As to what what the government has to do with it, your seem to be fine with following the part of that relating to works created on behalf of the government but then are acting like the part having to do with "public cultural bodies" isn't valid. That's it. Nowhere have I said the government owns the copyright to the church. I'm merely pointing out your double standard when it comes to the part of the law pertaining to works created for the government versus the the catholic church. The church couldn't have given permission to photograph the building because the copyright would have lapsed to the original architect after 2 years regardless though. So stop trying to side tract this with strawmen. --Adamant1 (talk) 16:46, 4 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That sentence is badly written, as I explained you at least other 20 times. If you read the original law you can claerly see how the provision about the 2 year copyright threshold that reverts back to the author is only applied to essays and written communications by academies and public cultural entities. A church is not an essay or a written communication. So your claim is false.
I sincerely don't know about what double standard you are talking about, I'm arguing that no part of the article 11 or of the article 29 is relevant in this DR, since Italy is not a theocratic state and therefore churches are not a public building and the church is a separate entity from the government.
There is no strawmen at all here, you are clearly claiming nonsense stuff as the fact that the catholic church is the government or that churches are essays only in order to confuse the situation and get the images deleted although it's highly likely that the copyright holder gave the right to photograph and reproduce the images. Friniate (talk) 17:52, 4 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
But then your perfectly fine saying that buildings qualify for the 20 year term even though they aren't mentioned anywhere in the part about government works and the only evidence you have that they qualify is a second hand document having to do with databases. So you clearly want to have it both ways. Regardless, if the copyright status of buildings created on behalf of the government expires after 20 years even though the law says absolutely nothing about buildings then there's no reason the copyright on buildings created on behalf of "cultural bodies" wouldn't lapse back to the original architect after 2. Your clearly going to just take whatever position allows the most images to be kept regardless though. Otherwise be my guest and admit your opinion about the 20 year thing is bunk since the law says absolutely nothing about it apply to buildings and I'll call this good. --Adamant1 (talk) 18:16, 4 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Of course you're just saying patently false things as anyone can read here. But I'm not interested in letting you continue your OT: those articles can not be applied here unless you prove that Italy is a theocratic state. Friniate (talk) 18:31, 4 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You mean patently false stuff like you acting as if this has anything to do with Italy being a theocratic state or not? Be my guest and point where I've said the images should be deleted because Italy is theocratic. Otherwise I'd apprciate it if you stopped putting words in my mouth. Your apparent inability to have a basic conversation without resorting to ad hominem is getting super tiring to deal with. It shouldn't be that hard to stick to the subject. Otherwise just don't participate in DRs if your that incapable of discussing the reason I nominated the images for deletion. --Adamant1 (talk) 18:44, 4 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You are claiming that the church is a public entity, it has very much to do with the question if Italy is a theocratic state or not! If you are unable to provide logical argumentations to support your DRs, then don't start them. Friniate (talk) 21:10, 4 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Your the only one using the word "public entity" so I have zero clue what your talking about. Although I will say for the like the fifth time now, don't comment in my DRs or respond to my messages if your just going to put words in my mouth. I'm getting extremely tired of having to counter things that no one is saying and that are patently false just because your incapable of reading or responding to what I'm actually saying for some reason. --Adamant1 (talk) 21:55, 4 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's the law that uses it, not me. Either the church is a cultural public entity in Italy, or the article that you are citing has nothing to do with this DR. Friniate (talk) 22:00, 4 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Churches are "private legal entities of a non-profit making character," which are also covered by the article. So yes it does have something to do with the DR. --Adamant1 (talk) 22:17, 4 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
They are not, since the activities of churches can also be for profit according the italian law (art. 16 of the law 222/1985). But even if they were, that would mean that we should keep all these images since the copyright on them would belong to the church and then fall into PD after 20 years. Friniate (talk) 10:12, 5 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Adamant1 I agree with @Friniate, the Law 222/1985 specifies that religious entities can have different statuses. Thus, in that case, I doubt that the City Council had the rights to give a permission for the Church. I suppose that we need a permission from the Savona Diocese (unless this Diocese has a non-profit character, an information that I haven't been able to find). Ruthven (msg) 10:04, 10 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That's fair. I hadn't seen Friniate's most recent comment, but it seems reasonable. At least if it can be determined that the church is a non-profit entity. Otherwise I assume the images would be copyrighted. --Adamant1 (talk) 10:11, 10 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No, it depends from the contract between the diocese and the artist, as I've already said. Friniate (talk) 10:53, 10 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Friniate In any case, the work is copyrighted, unless the rights belong to the client (the Diocese of Savona) and this diocese is registered as a non-profit entity. What is the most probable is that the diocese is the copyright holder, but that it's not a non-profit entity. But it has to be confirmed... Ruthven (msg) 15:42, 12 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I was simply answering to the claim that this church would fall under the 2 year-threshold provision. The document that I linked says that the diocese has authorized the images of the church with an open license. Unfortunately I couldn't find the letter of the diocese. Friniate (talk) 15:53, 12 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


File:Treigny-geologie.png[edit]

(c) IGN, not own work, no free license. Yann (talk) 16:38, 3 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello Yann. That use is allowed. It only missed the « © IGN » (now added) and we're supposed to add the year but I've dug a bit and I can't find that. Do they mean the current year? (i.e. the year when the copy was made?) The year the copy was made is in the page too.
licensing text is here:
https://www.geoportail.gouv.fr/mentions-legales
l’IGN autorise les réutilisations suivantes : [...]
insertion dans un site, un blog, plateforme de partage ou autre application web permettant la consultation sans inscription à tous les internautes, dans la limite d’une ou plusieurs images de taille maximum 1000×1000 pixels ou équivalent, ou encore environ 1 000 000 de pixels; toute publication devra être accompagnée du logo Géoportail et du logo IGN ou des mentions littérales « © IGN » et l’année. Toutefois, ces mentions ne devront qu’indiquer l’origine de la copie d’écran sans induire de confusion entre le site de publication et le Géoportail.
So that's valid for ALL maps coming from Géoportail (those not too big anyway but here big ones don't fit either). No fuss, just add the ©IGN thing.
the {{PD-1923}} is wrong but I don't know which one it should be.

Pueblo89 (talk) 22:37, 3 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Désolé, mais non, ces conditions ne sont pas acceptables pour Commons. Il faut une autorisation illimitée, irrévocable, pour tout le monde, et pour tout usage.
Sorry, but no, these conditions are not acceptables for Commons. We need an unlimited, irrevocable authorization, for everyone, and for any use. Yann (talk) 00:11, 4 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Bonjour Yann,
1) merci d'ajouter un appel genre [[User:Pueblo89|Pueblo89]] ou d'effet similaire dans tout message ajouté, sinon comment sait-on s'il y a une réponse sauf à jouer au flic ou au paranoïaque (ou les deux) ?
2) Je ne comprends pas (j'y connais rien). Qu'est-ce que ça donne si on ajoute le « © IGN » dans l'image ?
Sinon ma foi, faites ce qui vous semble bon.
Bonne soirée. Pueblo89 (talk) 18:01, 11 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Confini Abruzzo.png[edit]

https://geoservices.ign.fr/cgu-licences No free license. Yann (talk) 16:51, 3 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Discussion in progress. Do not delete before conclusion. ----Abalg (talk) 17:42, 3 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[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:Cattedrale Cristo Re (La Spezia)[edit]

Unfortunately there's no FOP in Italy and the architect of this building, Adalberto Libera, died in 1963. So these images are copyrighted until at least 2034.

Adamant1 (talk) 16:54, 3 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --Materialscientist (talk) 01:29, 10 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Files in Category:Cattedrale Cristo Re (La Spezia)[edit]

Unfortunately there's no FOP in Italy and although I couldn't find any information about who the creators of this stained glass window and plaque are, neither one has been dead for more 70 since the church where they are located was built in 1956. So these images are copyrighted until an undetermined date unless someone can provide evidence to the contrary.

Adamant1 (talk) 16:57, 3 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The picture "colored church window in Italy" does not show a detail of the "Cattedrale di Christo Re" in the city of La Spezia in Liguria, to which your objection refers.
Rather, it was taken in the new part built starting in 1922 in the pilgrimage church of the "Madonna del Sangue" (it. Basilica della Beata Vergine Maria del Sangue di Re) in the small municipality of Re in Piedmont. This church was elevated to the status of a cathedral (Basilica minor) in 1958.
For this reason, any deletion of this media file must be objected to. Barbara-Ingeborg (talk) 21:45, 3 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I assume your talking about Category:Madonna del Sangue (Re, Italy). If so, you seem to be right. But then it, or at least the basilica where the window appears to be located, was built in 1958. So the image would still be copyrighted regardless. --Adamant1 (talk) 22:14, 3 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Actually here I read that the works of the basilica started in 1922 and finished in 1958, so the image could indeed be in PD. Anyway I'd recommend to open a separate DR, since it's a completely different case from the other images.--Friniate (talk) 14:06, 4 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You are right, the image was taken in the basilica of Re. The construction of the new part of this building started in 1922. 1958 only was the church was upgraded to a basilica. The architect of this new building was Edoardo Collamarini, who already died in 1928, more than 90 years ago. Barbara-Ingeborg (talk) 21:38, 4 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ok, it seems then that we should  Keep the image per article 27 of the italian copyright law, which gives a 70 years threshold for anonymous or pseudoanonymous works, even if I continue to think that we should split the discussion about this image from the mass DR about another church. Friniate (talk) 10:07, 5 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't really care about the first image, but text can be copyrighted and in no way is a 12 line paragraph a "simple inscription." --Adamant1 (talk) 16:18, 4 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's under ToO anyway, there are hundreds of thousands of inscriptions like that. About the first image, well, to put in DR an image in PD is a clear error, so you shouldn't say that you don't care about it, but that you are sorry and that you'll pay more attention the next time. Friniate (talk) 16:27, 4 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
OK. I don't really care about it either way, but no where did I say I nominated File:Cristo deposto-Angiolo del Santo.jpg for deletion because of the sculpture and it isn't the only thing in the image. There's also two paintings that are clearly modern and therefore probably copyrighted. Maybe actually look at the image next. --Adamant1 (talk) 16:51, 4 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Clearly de minimis can be applied there. Friniate (talk) 17:43, 4 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You seem to be mixing de minimis with something not being the main subjec of the photograph. They aren't the same thing or mutually exclusive. What matters is if someone can use the image to make a duplicate of the paintings, and they clearly can. Even without having to zoom into the photograph. Although the paintings are pretty clear if you zoom in. So there's no reason they would be de minimis as they clearly aren't a trivial part of the image. --Adamant1 (talk) 17:49, 4 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Where is it written that de minimis can't be applied if you can see a copyrighted object? In the images taken as an example in Commons:De minimis the copyrighted details are visible and if you zoom you could clearly take them and using them as an image, so that it's clearly not the way how the guideline works. Friniate (talk) 18:01, 4 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As an example in Commons:De minimis the copyrighted details are visible and if you zoom you could clearly take them and using them as an image Which is exactly what I'm saying people can do here. So what's your point except that you apparently agree with me that the paintings aren't De minimis since the details are clearly visible? --Adamant1 (talk) 18:21, 4 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ok, now you are just trolling. Friniate (talk) 18:35, 4 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
OK, Friniate. All these conversations eventually devolve into you lobbing insults at me when its clear you don't have any actual argument. --Adamant1 (talk) 18:49, 4 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Actually it is you that couldn't provide any logical answer to my observations and decided to mock me, but whatever dude. Friniate (talk) 21:08, 4 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't think I was mocking you by saying that what you qouted is exactly what I was saying. I'll not to agree with what you write if it triggers you that badly next time though ;) --Adamant1 (talk) 21:58, 4 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Of course it does not and you perfectly know that. You are saying that de minimis can not be applied if you can zoom out the image and take a copyrighted detail and be able to use it as a separate photo. I'm pointing out that you could do that also with the images listed in the guideline as images for which you can apply de minimis, so that it's clearly not the way in which you decide if de minimis can be applied or not. But whatever, if you want to hear that I agreed with you when I said the opposite, so be it. Friniate (talk) 22:06, 4 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Per the guideline "Assume we have a photograph with a copyright-protected poster in the background. There are two copyrights involved: that of the photographer and that of the poster-designer, and both may subsist independently. However, if the poster is entirely incidental to the overall subject-matter of the photograph, the copying may be considered de minimis." Now would say that the "overall subject-matter" of the photograph is simply a single statue, or maybe the whole display including the paintings? --Adamant1 (talk) 22:13, 4 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
So, when you said "You seem to be mixing de minimis with something not being the main subjec of the photograph" I was in fact right, good. Anyway, yes, I'm arguing that the inclusion of the paintings is just incidental, otherwise I wouldn't have said that it should be kept. Friniate (talk) 10:03, 5 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Carte géologique de la pointe Saint-Mathieu.png[edit]

https://geoservices.ign.fr/cgu-licences No free license. Yann (talk) 16:57, 3 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:TheRunAwayJaysMainFile.jpg[edit]

Pokemon figures (COM:TOY), apparently self-promotional (COM:ADVERT), low quality Clarinetguy097 (talk) 17:00, 3 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Médaille en l'honneur de Lucien Lacour de Maxime Real del Sarte.png[edit]

This file was initially tagged by AntiCompositeBot as no license (User:AntiCompositeBot/NoLicense/tag). Sculptor died in 1954, undelete in 2025. It is public domain in the US though. Abzeronow (talk) 18:31, 3 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Files in Category:Santa Maria Assunta (Sernaglia della Battaglia)[edit]

Unfortunately there's no FOP in Italy and the architect of this building, Alberto Alpago Novello, died in 1985. So these images are copyrighted until at least 2056.

Adamant1 (talk) 18:45, 3 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I could be thinking of a different church, but I thought there were differences when I compared images of the original with the "reconstructed" version. Just because he "supervised the reconstruction" doesn't necessarily mean it's a 1/1 recreation or that he didn't have anything to do with the new design regardless though. At the end of the day he's credited as the architect. So he was clearly more involved in the project then just standing on the sidelines and nodding his head in approval or whatever. Not to say he designed the whole thing from scratch either, but that's not really the standard. --Adamant1 (talk) 16:33, 4 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
In the source it's clearly written that it was a 1/1 reconstruction, do you have sources that say that it wasn't? Friniate (talk) 17:45, 4 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The source says "the current church was rebuilt in fundamentals, as it was and where the old one was, under the direction of the architect. A. Alpago Novello, in 1922." Maybe it's a difference in meaning between languages but at least in English something being "fundamentally" based on something else doesn't mean its a 1/1 recreation of that thing. Only that they share the same core attributes, but there can still be major differences. Like if I were to write a book that's "fundamentally" based on The Lord of the Rings that doesn't mean I literally wrote an exact 1/1 copy of it. Just that it was based on some core ideas in the book. --Adamant1 (talk) 17:57, 4 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's latin, "a fundamentis", it means "from the foundations", it only means that no part of the previous church was standing and that they had to completely rebuild it. Friniate (talk) 18:03, 4 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yeah, it means "from the basics", which I think is totally in alignment with what I said that it doesn't mean the building is necessarily a 1/1 recreation of the original. Just that it's based on the basics of the original building. That could mean literally anything though. Otherwise there should at least be an image of the original so we can compare them and see how similar they are. There's zero evidence that "from the basics" means the new building is an exact, 1/1 recreation of the original though. But I'm more then willing to retract this if you can find an image of the original and they are close enough in design to justify it. --Adamant1 (talk) 18:26, 4 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
But immediately after that expression is clearly written that it actually is a 1/1 recreation of the original. Friniate (talk) 18:34, 4 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That's not what it sounds like its saying to me. But whatever. The closing admin can read it and decide for themselves. Although it still be helpful if there was an image of the original that we could compare the new building to. --Adamant1 (talk) 19:19, 4 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It says literally that it was rebuilt "as it was and where it was the old one". I could find only photos of the church during WWI, as it was half and then completely destroyed, so they don't tell much. Friniate (talk) 21:18, 4 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
OK. I said I'm fine leaving it up to the closing administrator. So it would be cool if you stopped arguing about it. --Adamant1 (talk) 21:57, 4 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm just providing the translation of what it's written, since the administrator may not understand italian, relax man. Friniate (talk) 22:02, 4 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • In Italy, many buildings were destroyed during both the world wars, even historical ones. They were rebuilt with the aim of restore their previous aspect as much as possible. This is the case also for this church. I think we can keep all the pictures that do not reproduce in high resolution details of new artworks (mosaics, paintings, etc.), realised in the new building to substitute corresponding destroyed ones. In this case, we can  Keep most of the pictures in the category.--Harlock81 (talk) 08:07, 19 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


File:Secretary Blinken Arrives to Host a Town Hall With YSEALI Alumni on Environmental Responsibility in Phnom Penh (52263169899).jpg[edit]

Likely copyrighted original artwork. Ooligan (talk) 18:58, 3 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


File:Pedestal.jpg[edit]

Non-free content, derivative work, unclear sourcing. Image contains copyrighted painting by a living artist (Allison Zuckerman). Unclear sourcing, this appears to be a professional image from her site or her gallery's site. 19h00s (talk) 19:08, 3 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Бобкова Марина Станиславовна.jpg[edit]

Фото из личного архива: автор неизвестен, лицензия неверная. -- Tomasina (talk) 19:31, 3 November 2023 (UTC) (English: "Photo from the personal archive, unknown authorship, fake license). --Werter1995 (talk) 06:23, 14 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Подскажите, какую лицензию нужно указать? CC0? Alyssa 91 (talk) 21:48, 3 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Unless you own the copyright because you shot the photo, you have no authority to license it in any way. Read COM:Licensing: " A license can only be granted by the copyright holder, who is usually the author (photographer, painter or similar)." -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:00, 4 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Hacktivist Vanguard photo 2023.jpg[edit]

Copyright status is unclear, probably permission is needed. Andrei Romanenko (talk) 19:53, 3 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Walla walla music factory.jpg[edit]

Risk of copyright violation, may not be the uploader's own work. Uploaded to FaceBook before Commons.[2] Metadata indicates a Facebook source. Verbcatcher (talk) 20:41, 3 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:TedGrossman.jpg[edit]

Commons:Derivative works, e.g. from print source, unlikely to be own work Polarlys (talk) 21:02, 3 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  •  Delete crop of a photo on IMDb, which is credited to Rob Wainfur.[3] TinEye shows multiple earlier examples online, including a blog post dated before the upload to Commons.[4] Verbcatcher (talk) 22:40, 3 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Keep No copyright symbol, image from 1975 filming of Jaws. Now properly credited to Rob Wainfur, but US not use pma rule. --RAN (talk) 23:16, 3 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • IMDb dates this to 1982, during the filming of E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial. The difference between 1975 and 1982 is significant, because between 1978 and 1989 US works could be registered for copyright up to five years after publication, see {{PD-US-1978-89}} and Commons:Hirtle chart. We need evidence of non-registration. Verbcatcher (talk) 02:30, 4 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Good catch, I agree with ET. --RAN (talk) 15:57, 5 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Files in Category:Sant'Antonio da Padova (Vernio) - Exterior[edit]

Unfortunately there's no FOP in Italy and the architect of this church, Alessandro Giuntoli, died in 1980. So these images are copyrighted until at least 2051.

Adamant1 (talk) 23:23, 3 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[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:Matitone in Genoa[edit]

Sorry, but this building of Skidmore, Owings and Merrill is too recent (1992) and Italy has no FOP exemption.

 Delete per Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Auditorium Parco della Musica (Rome).

Raoli ✉ (talk) 22:28, 7 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Deleted: INeverCry 02:12, 14 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Files in Category:Matitone in Genoa[edit]

Unfortunately there's no FOP in Italy and although I couldn't find any information about the architects of this building, Mario Lanata and Andrea Messina, they clearly haven't died for 70 years yet since it was built in 1992. So these images are copyrighted until an undetermined date.

Adamant1 (talk) 18:26, 3 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think your confusing something not being the main subject of the photograph with it being de minimis. They aren't the same thing. In this case the images can be "of the harbor" and the building can still be prominent enough for the photographs to be copyrightable. The building is the main feature of most those images regardless though. The only one where that might not be the case is File:Porto Genova 0127.JPG but then the other buildings are probably copyrighted anyway. So it doesn't really matter. --Adamant1 (talk) 16:25, 4 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Except that de minimis is precisely about what is the overall subject of the photograph: ""Assume we have a photograph with a copyright-protected poster in the background. There are two copyrights involved: that of the photographer and that of the poster-designer, and both may subsist independently. However, if the poster is entirely incidental to the overall subject-matter of the photograph, the copying may be considered de minimis."" Friniate (talk) 10:31, 5 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/2023/11/03&oldid=823670168"