Commons:Deletion requests/2023/11/04

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

November 4[edit]

File:Jockstrap - ILUQTINVU.png[edit]

Not too simple for copyright. See COM:TOO UK. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 01:29, 4 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Magog the Ogre: Are you only nominating this for deletion because Jockstrap are a British band? That artwork is available worldwide—it's sourced from the US Apple Music page. Why is it strictly beholden to UK copyright law? Ss112 (talk) 03:14, 4 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Because it was created in the UK. Omphalographer (talk) 05:16, 4 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Omphalographer: Says who? I don't know where it was created, and I don't think anyone but the musicians do. British artists are capable of making work outside of the UK. It could be additionally copyrighted to one of their international labels. Ss112 (talk) 14:15, 4 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
British band, British record, British record label. We are going to treat this under British rules. Even if we didn't, this is copyrightable almost everywhere else. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 17:06, 4 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Magog the Ogre: How is it copyrightable everywhere else? The public domain tag says "basic handwriting, and simple geometric shapes". That's why I imported it because that's exactly what this is. Two hand-drawn love hearts joined together and "I♡UQTINVU" are simple geometric shapes and basic handwriting. Ss112 (talk) 02:24, 5 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Files in Category:Santa Giulia Billiart (Rome) - Exterior[edit]

Unfortunately there's no FOP in Italy and the architect of this church, Ernesto Vichi, died in 2008. So these images are copyrighted until at least 2079.

Adamant1 (talk) 02:12, 4 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Looks like a pretty unique building to me, but then I know the standard of originality is higher in Italy then other places. Although I don't think thst should be used as an excuse to keep random images thst would otherwise be COPYVIO either. So..I leave it up to the closing admin. I do wish the stanard of originality was clearer though. --Adamant1 (talk) 15:30, 4 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ok, show me where this is 'original'. If it were original, no mass-housing buildings might be pictured. Italy has a high threshold of originality both on architecture and on photography. For example the Calatrava viaduct in Reggio Emilia can be considered original. This building nowhere close to be original. -- Blackcat 17:05, 4 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm not really sure what your on about since the last time I checked this isn't "mass-housing building." But come on, are you seriously going to tell me there's no unique architectural elements in this image or that the building is at all comparable to something like this? --Adamant1 (talk) 17:14, 4 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't care whether it's comparable or less with whatever. I only notice that there are only simple geometric shapes made with concrete. -- Blackcat 17:29, 4 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
OK, Blackcat. Your the one who brought up housing units. Regardless, all buildings are made up of basic geometric shapes. That's litterally how they work. You can't just act like a building is below the threshold of originality because it happens to have a rectangular window or whatever. What matters is the design of the building as whole and at least IMO its unique enough this case to be copyrighted. If you disagree with that because it has a rectangular door like other buildings, cool. I leave it up to the closing admin to decide. Although its clearly not at all as generic as a mass-housing unit, which again you brought up to claim it isn't original. --Adamant1 (talk) 17:42, 4 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I didn't mention housing unit but mass housing, which is different (and I suppose you meant "you're the one", not "your the one"). I mention as example of building with no originality whatsoever. -- Blackcat 18:45, 4 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The word "mass" is a distinction withput a purpose. Regardless, this building has original elements to it. Although as I've said, I'm more then willing to let whomever closes make the final call. Its certainly better then pedantically arguing over the semantics of if a building is a mass-housing unit or not lol. --Adamant1 (talk) 18:54, 4 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It is, instead, especially in Italy (a country in Southern Europe surrounded by Adriatic, Mediterranean and Thyrrenian Sea) where architects in the aftermath of WWII built lots of houses with little or no originality. -- Blackcat 19:52, 4 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't know about that. I think your underselling the uniqueness of post war church buildings over there. Some of them quit unique. Certainly no church where I'm from in the states even comes close. --Adamant1 (talk) 20:10, 4 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Architects and art experts won't agree. -- Blackcat 20:16, 4 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Not to put words in your mouth, but it seems like you just want there to be a de facto standard where every building in Italy is below the threshold of originality because all buildings are made up of basic geometric shapes and post war architecture of houses or something. You'd have to agree that wouldn't be tenable way to do this. We have to draw the somewhere. I've actually skipped over a lot of church buildings because I don't think they are original enough to be copyrighted. So it's not like I'm out there just indiscriminately nominating images of generic houses for deletion or anything. But if I were to compare this church to other ones, for instance Chiesa di Sant'Elena (Roma) or San Raffaele Arcangelo (Rome) to name a couple, it clearly has original architectural elements to it. I'd probably never suggest that a building like San Raffaele Arcangelo does though. --Adamant1 (talk) 20:25, 4 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I find the degree of lack of FOP in Italy (and France and Romania) appalling, but it's the law, and we follow it. Yes, there is certainly enough originality in that building to merit a copyright. There are plenty of choices in that design that aren't merely functional or conventional. So, sadly, we have to delete. - Jmabel ! talk 20:29, 4 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Jmabel: , the threshold of originality is very high here. Not to mention that Vichi was an engineer, not an architect, and his work was more oriented to materials, not to design. -- Blackcat 21:34, 4 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Blackcat: is there anything in Italian copyright law about whether or not the designer of a building has a credential as an architect? - Jmabel ! talk 21:50, 4 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Jmabel: , your question has nothing to do with the topic. The matter is the threshold of originality, and this building doesn't reach it. -- Blackcat 21:54, 4 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Blackcat: If it has nothing to do with the topic, why did you raise it? - Jmabel ! talk 21:58, 4 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Jmabel: it's your question that has nothing to do with the topic. -- Blackcat 22:28, 4 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't want to get in a pissing match here, but you wrote "Not to mention that Vichi was an engineer, not an architect". I then asked you whether his not having a credential as an architect had any bearing under Italian copyright law. I was trying to understand if I was missing one of the premises of a syllogism. Apparently I was not. I wouldn't normally put this the following way if you hadn't accused me of asking something that "ha[d] nothing to do with the topic," but: apparently your mention of him not being an architect had nothing to do with the matter at hand. I made the mistake of assuming that you had mentioned this fact because it was because it was in some way germane. Apparently, I was wrong in making that assumption. - Jmabel ! talk 06:14, 5 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
My mention of him as engineer HAS to do. Your question HAS NOT to do. Because it's a wrong question. An engineer is normally not supposed to be designed-oriented but rather material-oriented, because of their background. What has the law to do with that? Yours is a completely off-topic question. -- Blackcat 11:13, 5 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm not really sure what you think engineers do, but they can and often are involved in the design of the building. So your really just arguing over semantics having to do with a job title that for all intents and doesn't really matter because Ernesto Vichi designed the building either way. --Adamant1 (talk) 12:54, 5 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Excuse me but I don't understand what you say. -- Blackcat 14:11, 5 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Do a Google search about what engineers do. I was pretty clear about it. --Adamant1 (talk) 17:26, 5 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

We seem to have no consensus here so far, so I will mention this discussion on Commons:Village pump/Copyright. - Jmabel ! talk 02:37, 12 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Files in Category:Statue of Bartolomeu Dias in Cape Town[edit]

The statue was completed in 1960 by Salvador Barata Feyo (1899–1990). There is no freedom of panorama in South Africa. The copyright term of the country is 50 years, and the image can be undeleted in 2041.

A1Cafel (talk) 02:56, 4 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@A1Cafel: Hmm, it looked older. Looking back through the photos, it has 1952 written on it though (but not 1960?). Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 07:33, 4 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Talking with @Discott: , he suggests that this is a government work, which per en:Copyright_law_of_South_Africa#Copyright_term would be copyrighted for 50 years from publication - which would have expired in 2002. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 10:15, 4 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Files in Category:Jan Smuts Statue in Company Gardens[edit]

The statue was completed in 1964 by Sydney Harpley (1927–1992). There is no freedom of panorama in South Africa. The copyright term of the country is 50 years, and the image can be undeleted in 2043.

A1Cafel (talk) 03:00, 4 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


The deletion request is valid. I have a prospective. What about asking the users to add delete tag themselves so that they will not get warning regarding getting blocked which has happened to me. In the request I have two images, uploaded in 2028. I got a message from another user that it is my last warning. Sad. Jnanaranjan Sahu (ଜ୍ଞାନ) talk 07:47, 7 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Power of faith determines the battle.jpg[edit]

Potential copyright violation: Image was uploaded from twitter on November 1, 2023. URL was later changed to a source saying 4.0 license, but the source says image was published on November 2. Date discrepancy indicates potential copyright violation. The source (media) says Imam Khamenei created the image (Nov 1), but the twitter URL was not from Imam Khamenei. As deletion requestor, I would ask that email confirmation be required to prevent deletion, given the potential violation. WeatherWriter (talk) 03:43, 4 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Small note: The uploader currently has at least 3 uploads within the last few days at deletion request discussions for potential copyright violations. WeatherWriter (talk) 03:45, 4 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As the user who has nominated the above-mentioned uploads by this user, I think the file nominated here file is NOT a copyright violation (please see my explanations below). I can assure you Hanooz has correctly confirmed this file. HeminKurdistan (talk) 17:37, 5 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Delete We don't play with copyright. Tradediatalk 09:10, 4 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Keep as this is clearly not a copyright violation. The handle @Khamenei_m on X (formerly Twitter) belongs to the English section of khamenei.ir (Ali Khamenei's official website) and is one of the 17 accounts followed by the verified account @khamenei_ir. Also, the file uploaded from X (formerly Twitter) was only 675 KB (dimentions 1,365 × 2,048), while the second version sourced from khamenei.ir has much more quality (3.18 MB; 2,730 × 4,096). That being said, it is not feasible that the latter had taken the file from the former. HeminKurdistan (talk) 17:31, 5 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
 Keep The Twitter account and the website are unambiguously the same organization, and the file (even the Twitter version) is watermarked with Khamenei.ir. The file has a confirmed license review tag as well. This file was clearly originated by Khamenei.ir, watermarked by them, freely licensed by them, and published simultaneously on different platforms. Streamline8988 (talk) 04:56, 9 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:British National Front.png[edit]

Meets COM:TOO UK. Adam9007 (talk) 04:10, 4 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The file does not meet the threshold of originality since the logo's substance is wholely common property; per T.O.O. guidedlines, typographical logos are not considered original intellectual property. The Union Jack design embedded into the logo also does not meet T.O.O., as it is public-domain material[1] and does not have sufficient creative transformation applied to it for its public-domain status to be invalidated. Arkansore (talk) 14:56, 4 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The merging of the N and the F, the shadows, and the Union Jack background combined seem to me to be enough to meet the threshold; I'm seeing more originality here than on the Edge logo, which has been legally ruled to meet the threshold. Adam9007 (talk) 19:49, 4 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
In the judge's statement regarding the ruling declaring the Edge logo eligible for copyright protection, it is stated that artistic originality requires 'the expenditure of more than negligible or trivial effort or relevant skill in the creation of the work'; this being expressed in the subject through the 'distinctive slash and projection on the middle bar of the "E"'. This makes for two clear metrics in the UK system for what makes a logo artistically original: 'distinctiveness' and 'non-trivial effort'.
Regarding the 'distinctiveness' aspect, you state, for one, that the merging of the logo's letters is one feature that makes the logo meet the threshold. I would argue that this is not the case, as the merging of letters is common typographical practice and is not distinctive by any means; in the case of logos, compare the Kia logo as an example, which is internationally considered beneath the threshold of originality. Another example is the Yankee symbol, also the PlayStation logo — which could arguably be considered original with its shifted perspective between the P and the S, but still, it shows that letters being merged in a logo is not distinctive and could widely be considered, per the judge's own words, 'trivial effort' and not demonstrating clear artistic originality.
You also bring up the drop shadows featured behind the typography as an example of artistic originality; however, the aforestated legal ruling necessitates distinctive transformation to meet the threshold of originality. The drop shadow could not be considered a distinctive artistic development in any case; it is universally available in essentially all graphic design programs, including Photoshop, Illustrator and GIMP, not requiring any original creative input to be expended and is as such categorised by and large as common property.
Additionally, as I had mentioned in my previous reply, the Union Jack background is public-domain material, making it incapable of adding to a design's creative originality — the T.O.O. guidelines measure the designer's original creative input but the Union Jack background is dependent on previously created work, which makes its inclusion unoriginal and falls under trivial effort.
I understand that with the Edge logo being an example of a seemingly simple design meeting the UK T.O.O. guidelines, it could appear that this logo would meet the threshold too, but deconstructing the ruling and the guidelines themselves shows to be more nuanced and demonstrates that the National Front logo does not pass the originality threshold. Arkansore (talk) 22:10, 5 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Babel del futuro 1.png[edit]

Out of scope: plain text of unclear significance. Omphalographer (talk) 06:13, 4 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:(Barcelona) The Lady in the Lace Shawl by Adolf Münzer - Museu Nacional d'Art de Catalunya.jpg[edit]

copyright still active for 10 years Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:32, 4 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:20231026 120802 is a scuptural group at Bronx County Courthouse.jpg[edit]

uploader does not identify sculptor, name of work or location, but this appears to be a 1930s-era artwork by sculptor Edward Field Sanford (1886 - 1951) located on the 158th street side of the courthouse and thus still protected by copyright--see [1] DanielPenfield (talk) 08:37, 4 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:20231026 121205 is a scuptural group at the Bronx County Courthouse.jpg[edit]

uploader does not identify sculptor, name of work or location, but this appears to be a 1930s-era artwork by sculptor Edward Field Sanford (1886 - 1951) located on the 158th street side of the courthouse and thus still protected by copyright--see [2] DanielPenfield (talk) 08:37, 4 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:20231026 121307 is the same as "Thumbnail" above. Excuse me. This way is more informative!.jpg[edit]

uploader does not identify sculptor, name of work or location, but this appears to be a 1930s-era artwork by sculptor Edward Field Sanford (1886 - 1951) located on the 158th street side of the courthouse and thus still protected by copyright--see [3] DanielPenfield (talk) 08:37, 4 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Thumbnail is a scuptural group at the Bronx County Courthouse, New York.jpg[edit]

uploader does not identify sculptor, name of work or location, but this appears to be a 1930s-era artwork by sculptor Edward Field Sanford (1886 - 1951) located on the 158th street side of the courthouse and thus still protected by copyright--see [4] DanielPenfield (talk) 08:38, 4 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  •  Question What are the copyright rules on sculptures in the U.S.? Do they just become public domain 95 years after creation, as per COM:FOP US's reference to 1928, or is there a specific number of years since the artist's death that is relevant? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:43, 6 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Marcela Mc Gowan - SP 2023.jpg[edit]

This file was initially tagged by Eric Duff as Copyvio (copyvio)
Converted to regular DR to allow for discussion, as no evidence for copyvio was provided. -- Túrelio (talk) 09:41, 4 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Marcela Mc Gowan - 2023.jpg[edit]

This file was initially tagged by Eric Duff as Copyvio (copyvio)
Converted to regular DR to allow for discussion, as no evidence for copyvio was provided. -- Túrelio (talk) 09:42, 4 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Trostianec - Chaikovskyi.jpg[edit]

And also

There is no freedom of panorama in Ukraine and the photos violate sculptors and architects copyright. Created 1984. Derivatives of work - photo nonfree sculpture. No Permission from the sculptor. Микола Василечко (talk) 09:42, 4 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Seriously? But what if this statue is in "Wiki Loves Monuments" catalog? Really strange and annoying request, as for me. Trostianchanyn (talk) 18:04, 5 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"Wiki Loves Monuments" catalog is not rules of Wikimedia Commons. --Микола Василечко (talk) 18:24, 5 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ok, but if this files "violate sculptors and architecs copyright", why you give it an attention only for now? Because I see there is the photos which is made in 2014. And also, we don't know who is the sculptor of this statue, how I can contact him or his family? And one more question: why we need to ask permission, if many photos of statue of Chaikovskyi is already used in the Internet? This is nonsense🤦‍♂️ Trostianchanyn (talk) 19:11, 5 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Read about freedom of panorama in Ukraine. Regards. --Микола Василечко (talk) 19:51, 5 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I categorically don't agree with your opinion, because other photos of this statue is already used in the Internet, so why I can't download my own image? Can you explain why? Ah, yes, "free" encyclopedia, maybe I leave from this sh#t. 👎👎👎 Trostianchanyn (talk) 20:51, 5 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You're arguing with Ukrainian laws and the policy of Commons, not necessarily individual Wikipedias, to require photos hosted here to be available for commercial use. Some Wikipedias do allow fair use; Commons does not. All that said, the name of the sculptor is Nikolai Makarovich Sukhodolov. He was born in 1920, but I have not found his death date (and if he's alive today, God bless him!). The statue was erected in 1964, per https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pjotr-Iljitsch-Tschaikowski-Denkmal. If you'd like to try to track down his heirs and ask them whether they'd be willing to contact COM:VRT to give Commons permission to host photos of them, you'd be doing a good service, but otherwise, look into which Wikipedias might be able to use which photos locally. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:37, 6 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Trostianchanyn simple answer, Wikimedia Commons does not accept any content that is not allowed to be exploited commercially, read COM:Licensing#Acceptable licenses. All licenses permitted here are commercial-type: CC-BY, CC-BY-SA, CC-zero, and PD. Wikimedia Commons strictly upholds the principles of Free Cultural Works, and will never allow non-commercial content. Ukrainian copyright law is not compatible for Commons. The fact that the Ukrainian government only introduced non-commercial FoP means they are not willing to welcome the exposure of Ukrainian public monuments in the free culture Internet. Better to not have modern Ukrainian public monuments hosted here than tolerate unfree content and unfree licenses. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 14:41, 16 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Trostianchanyn as for your reply on existence of images on the Internet, those images are not under commercial licenses, and so following artists' copyrights and the restrictive Ukrainian laws.
Note that Wikimedia Commons admins have deleted tens of thousands of Ukrainian public buildings and monuments in the past, and this will still continue, as long as non-commercial restriction for public monuments exists. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 14:46, 16 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


File:LenE Princhap.jpg[edit]

Possible copyvio: The uploader is not the author, as per the metadata CoffeeEngineer (talk) 10:47, 4 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:LenEbp.jpg[edit]

Possible copyvio: The uploader is not the author, as per the metadata CoffeeEngineer (talk) 10:48, 4 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:ROP full color.jpg[edit]

Possible copyio: A signature appears on the photograph, suggestiong the uploader is not the author CoffeeEngineer (talk) 10:52, 4 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:OlivettiATC.jpg[edit]

This file was initially tagged by ZioNicco as no source (No source since) MrKeefeJohn (talk) 11:00, 4 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The photo was taken in Cupertino California (USA) and not in Italy, the author and the year of shooting are missing ZioNicco (talk) 11:02, 4 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Keep There's freedom of panorama for buildings in the U.S. The author field is as follows: "The original uploader was Enigma87 at Italian Wikipedia." 28 April 2008 is the original upload date. I don't see any reason to think either of those things are untrue. Do you think a tilted partial picture of a building is likely to have been downloaded from some website, rather than shot by an amateur photographer and uploaded to it.wikipedia? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:21, 6 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    The photo on it.wiki was deleted because the source was not present, nor the author, uploaded with an incorrect license, the year of shooting is not indicated. On it.wiki whoever uploaded the photo uploaded others that were deleted due to problems. ZioNicco (talk) 16:23, 16 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Ogarkov-KAL007.gif[edit]

This image may be present at the CIA website, but obviously CIA is not the proper copyright holder for this. This is a still from Soviet TV broadcast, no one else could film this press conference in the USSR Ministry of Defence office. 188.123.231.18 11:27, 4 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Keep. Should satisfy Template:PD-RU-exempt, specifically news reports on events and facts, which have a purely informational character (daily news reports, television programs, transportation schedules, and the like). S5A-0043Talk 11:46, 4 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
User:S5A-0043, no way. PD-RU-exempt is about simple texts w/o creative input, not images and not videos. What you call "television programs" are just TV listings. --188.123.231.18 12:27, 4 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If the image is a snippet from a “Soviet TV broadcast” as you claimed, how is a video produced by a news agency at press conference and released onto the news not a news report? S5A-0043Talk 12:36, 4 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Also the template doesn't mention "simple texts (without) creative input" or even the word "simple" in the entire template. How did you come to the conclusion that it is about simple text? S5A-0043Talk 12:42, 4 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
User:S5A-0043, hem, you don't understand the difference between text and video??? US president meets Japanese premier ahead of G-7 summit - this is what the whole world means saying "news report". --188.123.231.18 12:45, 4 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Seems like you're missing the point. There is zero mention of the condition of having to be "text" to satisfy PD-RU-exempt. Is anonymous folk art necessarily text? If not, why is it covered in PD-RU-exempt? And also, this is a video featuring an interview with Malaysian Prime Minister en:Anwar Ibrahim, posted by en:Channel NewsAsia. Do you not consider this a news report? S5A-0043Talk 13:07, 4 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Delete This is not CIA-work. This is not RU-exempt: news as themself (as facts, as events) are uncopyrightable, specific text-video report about facts/events is copyrightable. Alex Spade (talk) 14:31, 4 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Files uploaded by Manila Boy21 (talk · contribs)[edit]

These are more-than-a-decade-old uploads, but no one has managed to check the inconsistent authorships of the image files. Each of the image file has a different author stated, and it is impossible to ascertain if the uploader is indeed one of the four photographers(?) or if they only did the job of uploading. Identity confirmations of the uploader and the four authors are required, through COM:VRTS correspondence.

JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 11:37, 4 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Some startling discovery: one of the uploader's past uploads (now-deleted from public view) was "Angel Locsin.jpg", and a check on the file title's logs shows that it was deleted through Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Angel Locsin.jpg. Apparently, Manila Boy21 (talk · contribs) is a sockpuppet of Gerald Gonzalez (talk · contribs), in concluding this investigation of mine. So all these files must be  Deleted immediately as contributions of a sockpuppet of a sanctioned Filipino user on enwiki – sanctioned due to questionable images and copyright-problematic uploads. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 11:50, 4 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Don. Fernando Natalio Chomali Garib.jpg[edit]

Taken from https://www.soychile.cl/Osorno/Sociedad/2014/03/07/234991/La-Conferencia-Episcopal-nombro-al-arzobispo-Fernando-Chomali-como-administrador-apostolico-de-Osorno.aspx Rutsq (talk) 11:46, 4 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Files uploaded by アッスちゃん (talk · contribs)[edit]

SVG format images are available.

0x0a (talk) 13:16, 4 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Anthonij bonebakker-1584142931.jpg[edit]

Low quality old file. In addition, a file from the Amsterdam Museum is now being used of the same portrait. Amsterdamszilver (talk) 14:00, 4 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Imho no need to delete. This is the only version isolated from the frame as can be noted in Category:Anthonij Bonebakker Ellywa (talk) 15:43, 4 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree with Ellywa. Lidewij (talk) 20:26, 4 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Keep I also agree. Do an oval crop first of the framed version, then we can discuss deletion. --RAN (talk) 01:08, 5 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:8G-088 electric locomotive.jpg[edit]

This file was initially tagged by Tyg728 as Speedy (speedy) and the most recent rationale was: 作者或上傳者請求刪除, F3. 非自由版权内容的衍生作品.
Converted to regular DR to allow fo discussion. Not qualified for G7. And why should this be a derivative? -- Túrelio (talk) 14:44, 4 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

上傳者請求刪除--Tyg728 (talk) 15:09, 8 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That's not enough for an upload from 2019. Why do you want it deleted? --Túrelio (talk) 16:00, 8 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
非自由版權内容的衍生作品--Tyg728 (talk) 15:21, 9 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Get more specific! There is nothing in this image which would qualify as an artwork. So, of what might this be a derivative? --Túrelio (talk) 07:44, 10 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
没有版權的擁有者的授權--Tyg728 (talk) 12:54, 10 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Lucienne Marie-Noël avril 1953.jpg[edit]

This file was initially tagged by 81.41.182.243 as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: No proof that the BNF relased this specific 1953 issue under the cc-by-sa 4.0 license. It may be undeleted after 1 January 2024, after 70 years since its original publication in France.

Converted to DR for discussion, it would become PD in France in 2024. Not in the US until 2049. Abzeronow (talk) 15:22, 4 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A discussion took place on FR WP [Bistro]. to support adding these files to Commons. Further to this, Conditions d’utilisation explains that "The non-commercial reuse of this content is free and free in compliance with the legislation in force and in particular maintaining the mention of the source of the content as specified below". « Source gallica.bnf.fr / Bibliothèque nationale de France » OR « Source gallica.bnf.fr / BnF ».]}}.
Happy to discuss further. Charc2018
Charc2018 (talk) 10:08, 7 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As stated in the other DR, we cannot accept noncommercial only licenses at Commons. Abzeronow (talk) 15:53, 7 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Lamaze preparation accouchement juin 1953.jpg[edit]

This file was initially tagged by 81.41.182.243 as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: No proof that the BNF relased this specific 1953 issue under the cc-by-sa 4.0 license. It may be undeleted after 1 January 2024, after 70 years since its original publication in France.

Converted to DR for discussion and easier undeletion. It would appear to become public domain in France in 2024 as part of a collective work, but not in the US until 2049. Abzeronow (talk) 15:25, 4 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A discussion took place on FR WP [Bistro]. to support adding these files to Commons. Further to this, Conditions d’utilisation explains that "The non-commercial reuse of this content is free and free in compliance with the legislation in force and in particular maintaining the mention of the source of the content as specified below". « Source gallica.bnf.fr / Bibliothèque nationale de France » OR « Source gallica.bnf.fr / BnF ».]}}.
Happy to discuss further.
Charc2018 (talk) 10:08, 7 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Unfortunately we cannot accept noncommercial only licenses here. I realize that this is an important piece of media but there isn't a way for us to host it currently. Abzeronow (talk) 15:51, 7 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Complete neuron cell diagram en svg.png[edit]

Unused, unattributed, poor res extraction of Complete neuron cell diagram en.svg Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 17:13, 4 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:T-rex Coprolite Dinosaur Poop Poozeum.jpg[edit]

It shows the logo of the AAPS on the ruler. Another image of this specimen was later uploaded without the AAPS ruler showing. Poozeum (talk) 17:25, 4 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:We Can Do It.png[edit]

Out of scope: unused low quality version of File:We Can Do It! NARA 535413 - Restoration 2.jpg. Omphalographer (talk) 17:29, 4 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Caucasusbears.png[edit]

This file is low quality copy of AM 100 dram Ag 2006 RB Bear b.png image. Vahe (talk) 17:47, 4 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:C. Arnold Anderson.jpg[edit]

This file was initially tagged by Yann as no license (No license since). 1950s or 1960s photographic print. Could be public domain but we'd need to verify it. Abzeronow (talk) 18:04, 4 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  •  Keep I cannot find any version of his name in the registration or renewal databases. --RAN (talk) 01:09, 5 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Here is a link to the page I got the image from: https://photoarchive.lib.uchicago.edu/db.xqy?one=apf1-09179.xml
    As this is my first time trying to upload an image, was not sure how to cite it. Here is a link for their rights and permissions page: https://photoarchive.lib.uchicago.edu/rights.html
    So the credit line would be: University of Chicago Photographic Archive, apf1-09179, Hanna Holborn Gray Special Collections Research Center, University of Chicago Library
    Again wasn't really an option to use this to cite the name.
    His name is Charles Arnold Anderson and went by C. Arnold Anderson in research papers. LizOHIO2021! (talk) 00:32, 6 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Issey Nakajima-Farran (canada vs Jamaica).jpg[edit]

Photo comes from https://discovernikkei.org/en/journal/2015/1/2/issey-nakajima-farran/ Likely not free image RedPatch (talk) 18:39, 4 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Shree Khan Bahadur Ardeshir Irani.jpg[edit]

wrong date, copyright violation? Xocolatl (talk) 18:41, 4 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Vinayak Pai.jpg[edit]

copyright violation, see source Xocolatl (talk) 18:50, 4 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The image was clicked on Tata Projects Banker's Meet 2022 and it is a free license been copied and distributed across all media releases. This picture is used on Tata Projects official website and LinkedIn Individual profile. Prathm.Shinde09 (talk) 04:50, 10 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Edizioni Musicali Casadei Sonora.jpg[edit]

Document without historical importance, i.e., not in COM:SCOPE. Günther Frager (talk) 19:04, 4 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Fox, Donnelly, Dolan, Haran, Creedan 1938.jpg[edit]

Unfortunately, it seems that the license is CC-3.0, noncommercial, no derivative use Ergo Sum 19:15, 4 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:TACAMCAMO.PNG[edit]

This is a horizontally flipped and cropped version of this: https://www.hyperstealth.com/tacam/Tacam-R-100_small.jpg Schierbecker (talk) 19:15, 4 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

TIFF versions of Geograph images[edit]

These files are redundant with, respectively, File:St Augustine's church, Heanton Punchardon - geograph.org.uk - 3221284.jpg and File:St Gregory the Great's church, Dawlish - interior - geograph.org.uk - 4489159.jpg. In each case the TIFF and JPEG versions are visually identical, though there do appear to be some extra compression artifacts in the TIFF version. I would have tagged the TIFF versions with {{Duplicate}}, but that's not applicable where the images are in different formats. --bjh21 (talk) 20:26, 4 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It's o. k., I generated these files, because I had found them in Geograph, but not in the Commons, as they were not categorized with the depicted buildings.--Ulamm (talk) 21:08, 4 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Californios chef Val.png[edit]

I don't know who created this photo, but I doubt this photo belongs to the uploader. Looks too well made (if not professional) to believe that it belongs to the uploader. The person poses well; must have been direction of photographer or the assistant. George Ho (talk) 20:37, 4 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Quaid e azam fahad mustafa.jpg[edit]

This image is likely not the uploader's own work - see the Google Image search https://lens.google.com/search?ep=gisbubb&hl=en&re=df&p=AbrfA8q5TMSP7R-_JvRDCDpqv6DZjAUr5c0n9bw1t6q4i6TBTrIDz1A1Ec7SbPYwsWvel6__xSkJyQXLmGTk9Nml-ACvzZNk6DkU5ZQtDW0OaQ300pQiSC2gpyu4bK4UTw4Hcp6gqopsTV-NXBk1MbOpDO85puVknKuwaTNjK65SreIf2BrHmj9YUfLPnkGkyrxIG813_Z-tzu1kf8hQrWeEz9GjFfq5zRjy8yCTnkIJZW_UGGaacXgMD2V4AAozPDWocEjp5fvWGBGIpAHFG7ejG02UKeQXV8dHAIFfiGXebrh0ZiVV2d5ECaKqRG0m4rDZ1RHZuhS6wZfQwaxA5DmwNHT9wt5NgX1Tz1OnrglhMJmbrQ%3D%3D#lns=W251bGwsbnVsbCxudWxsLG51bGwsbnVsbCxudWxsLG51bGwsIkVrY0tKREk1WkRWa05qTTJMV1EzT1RRdE5HVmtNeTA1WVdNekxXVTVPRGMyWTJSaU0yWXlaQklmYXpaNk5rbFFabTlPWW05aFNVVXhUR3gwZUVKVlRISkpSVkJ5UTNWU1p3PT0iXQ== GoingBatty (talk) 21:15, 4 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Molokan cemetery in Kabaevo village, Mordovia 10.jpg[edit]

people on the foto Vaija (talk) 21:52, 4 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:20151213 xl P1010528-20-Minutenverkehr nach Strausberg Nord - Werbeaktion der S-Bahn - Waren Sie schon auf dem Strausberg.JPG[edit]

Bitte Um Löschung: Innenaufnahme, unscharf, Wunsch des ursprünglich hochladenden, keine Verwendung --Molgreen (talk) 05:52, 4 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  1. ↑ File:Flag of the United Kingdom.
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/2023/11/04&oldid=823661179"