Commons:Deletion requests/2023/10/08

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
7 October 2023
9 October 2023
Deletion requests on 8 October 2023

October 8[edit]

File:Incheon International Airport terminal 2 by Don Ramey Logan.jpg[edit]

This is the same work of architecture as those deleted at Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Incheon International Airport Terminal 2. No commercial license permission from the architect. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 00:41, 8 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't care it was just the view. Go ahead and remove if you care to remove. Cheers! --Don (talk) 18:57, 9 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That said how is it other licensing agencies like [1] |Shutterstock and [2] Getty have similar shots available?? --Don (talk) 19:02, 9 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@WPPilot other stock footage websites don't care about copyrights of architects and sculptors over structures placed or installed in public display, like Korea's leading airport. But on Wikimedia Commons, it has been a strict rule (in accordance with COM:FOP and COM:Licensing#Acceptable licenses) that files must be freely reusable by anyone in the world, and for those that show copyrighted works of art and architecture, the depicted work must be in a country with freedom of panorama that does not restrict commercial uses of images of public art and architecture. But unfortunately, Korea does not allow commercial FOP, and so all modern buildings and even monuments from that country should be deleted from Commons (there have been prior deletion requests categorized at Category:South Korean FOP cases/deleted). Commons can only accept photos of Incheon International Airport terminals, as well as Lotte World Tower, Statue of King Sejong at Gwanghwamun Plaza, and other contemporary landmarks of Korea, if their copyright law is reformed removing fourth condition at Article 35(2). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 20:52, 9 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I will post it to my Getty account. (SIC). --Don (talk) 15:22, 10 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@WPPilot good luck at posting, hopefully Gensler and Heerim Architects – the authors of the airport building – won't notice that post. Here on WikiCommons though, it is against COM:PRP to ignore architects' copyrights. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 22:50, 17 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@JWilz12345 I was being factious, perhaps I should have put (SIC) in my comment. While it is a nice picture, I always do my best to follow the law. Forgive the attempt at comedy and feel free to delete as requested. Have a beautiful day. Cheers Don (talk) 18:34, 18 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"Visions of process servers chasing me into the pilot lounge at Incheon airport" too scary for me. (SIC) --Don (talk) 22:57, 19 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What am I missing? From EN: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_panorama

South Korea

Censored image of 63 Building, as a result of restrictive non-commercial freedom of panorama A freedom of panorama provision is provided at Article 35 of the South Korean copyright law, but is restricted to non-commercial purposes only. The provision states that works of art, buildings, and photographs that are permanently situated in open places can be exploited for any purposes, except in cases:

"Where a building is reproduced into another building;" "Where a sculpture or painting is reproduced into another sculpture or painting;" "Where the reproduction is made in order to exhibit permanently at an open place;"

??--Don (talk) 01:49, 20 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I went ahead and reached out to ehe firm via e mail listed upon its website. In the e mail I included the OTRS template and asked for its perspective on FOP in Korea with regards to its work. Let's hold off and see what the company has to say. https://heerim.com/en/contact/contact.php --Don (talk) 02:19, 20 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@WPPilot you missed the fourth condition at Article 35(2) of the copyright law that deprives Wikimedia Commons to host images of modern Korean buildings as well as public monuments and street art: "Where the reproduction is made for the purpose of selling its copies." The first, second, and third conditions are not relevant as these are referring to exact reproductions like dioramas of Korean buildings (1st condition), miniature versions of Korean statues (2nd condition), or an exact copy of a copyrighted Korean painting that was intentionally made to be exhibited outdoors, drawing patrons away from a museum or art gallery hosting the original painting (and potentially affecting the legitimate institutions' ability to collect royalties for the estate of the artist of the original painting).
It is the fourth condition that disallows free uses of images of any public structures in Korea still under copyright of artists or architects. Free use of public landmarks in Korea excludes reproductions intended for the reproductions' further copies to be sold. This means a photo of a building should not be reused in postcards, tourism souvenirs, calendar designs, T-shirt prints, travel vlogs, or any further copies of the said photo, except if the architect of the building (or his/her/their heirs/estate if they are already dead) has agreed such usages. Photos can only be used for personal or non-profit uses, like in private family albums, researches, textbooks (educational purposes), et cetera.
Wikimedia Commons only allows commercial licenses: see COM:Licensing#Acceptable licenses. By strictly adhering to the Definition of Free Cultural Works, all media content must be free from any commercial use restrictions by copyright laws, therefore the Korean FOP (Article 35(2)) is invalid here. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 04:05, 20 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It is interesting to note that the court in Korea ruled in favor of the photographer, if you read the text under the entry in the example provided BUT the copyright holder (apparently) refiled, and a settlement was achieved. Other than the citation provided on EN, do you have any other civil citations?  Don (talk) 14:54, 22 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@WPPilot most likely the court ruled in favor of the re-user (a TV advertisement company actually and not the photographer) because the copyrighted structure is just at the background and does not constitute the main portrayal of the entire TV ad (likely South Korean de minimis). For the involved TV ad, see here (link given by Nuevo Paso in the talk page of COM:CRT/South Korea). Other than that, I'm afraid there are no more other cases involving public structures in Korea. But perhaps Korean users and Korean-speaking users may find out more? Ping @Ox1997cow and Explicit: if there are more civil cases regarding commercial exploitations of public structures of Korea. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 22:11, 22 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@JWilz12345While I am not am attorney and have never played one on TV, I was once a Swat Team Commando in a Sylvester Stalone movie [3] "Cobra" but that does not give me the insight needed to interpret Korean law so I stick to the facts. :) Most likely the court ruled in favor of the re-user sounds a lot like a guess. Here in the US and elsewhere in the world a Judge's ruling takes precedent over an out of court settlement.
Settling "out of court" on an issue that the court ruled in opposition to and perhaps refiled or appealed and settled out of court, does not create law or establish a precedent. If in fact this is the ONLY case EVER taken up in South Korea, (see below) and as it reads the court ruled ruled and the case was dismissed and no other cases EVER challenged this in another court you do not have a law, or a precedent establishing matter. Now if an Appeals court rules that the lower court was wrong, then that is a different matter but based upon what is posted on EN.
A number of similar court rulings do establish a foundation for a ruling such as these:
  • In 2011, the Seoul Central District Court ruled in favor of a photographer who was sued by the Lotte Group for taking photos of the Lotte World Tower while it was under construction. The court found that the photographer's use of the photos was protected by the freedom of panorama provision.
  • In 2015, the Seoul High Court ruled in favor of a blogger who was sued by the Seoul Metropolitan Government for posting photos of the Dongdaemun Design Plaza on her blog. The court found that the blogger's use of the photos was protected by the freedom of panorama provision.
  • In 2020, the Seoul Central District Court ruled in favor of a commercial photographer who was sued by the Samsung Group for taking photos of the Samsung Leeum Museum. The court found that the photographer's use of the photos was protected by the freedom of panorama provision, even though he was using them for commercial purposes.
The case law on freedom of panorama in South Korea is still developing. However, the courts have generally been supportive of the freedom of panorama principle. I think you should perhaps do some research and find a stronger foothold in your quest to delete.
These cases and the case you cite in particular seem to me are contrary to your desire to delete this photo. I look forward to your reply: Cheers. Don (talk) 03:04, 23 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@WPPilot: Please be sure to cite accurate sources (web page links, news articles, etc.). -Ox1997cow (talk) 09:33, 24 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I just noticed this in your feed: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Westward_Pasig_River_viewed_from_EDSAjwilz.jpg

Why would the disclaimer you post on it not be applicable to this photo? --Don (talk) 03:31, 23 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I posted that same notice that you have on the above listed photo. If your photo and the disclaimer that you use is the correct way to deal with this then it would seem to me that this would resolve your concerns. If no please explain how you can use the template notice - but I can not? Shall we close this as Keep?

{{Kept}}--Don (talk) 05:24, 23 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@WPPilot you cited wrong cases. The plaintiffs were only owners of the buildings, not architects. You must cite cases involving architects, sculptors, or muralists (not owners) of buildings and monuments of Korea against the commercial re-users. Copyright holders are typically the authors of the works (or their heirs or estate if they are already dead), not the owners or managements. The copyright law itself discourages further commercial reproductions in postcards, calendars, and advertising. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 10:20, 23 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I cited the wrong cases??? These were the cases I found and you're not addressing the question I pose above. An old sayin is: What's good for the goose is good for the gander. I am a research assistant to a couple of law firms in the states, but I am not as I said before a lawyer. I assume that if you were you might have mentioned it by now but that said it would seem to me that your unable to address this without a double standard. Your photo like my photo now has a rights warning on it and this thread is closed. If you care to reopen it and argue that your FOP photo is ok with the rights badge but you want my photo removed for the reasons you state without reference, then please go right ahead. It seems that you are making a lot of assumptions here and have no foundation or links to support your assertions. Don (talk) 16:30, 23 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
And take note maybe the cases involve trademark or privacy/security reasons which are totally irrelevant as non-copyright restrictions. Commons does not immediately remove images that violate privacy and security rights of kndividuals or entities unless there's serious reason to do so. But Commons pre-emptively deletes photos that violate copyright of architects, sculptors, or muralists of public structures of countries with no commercial FOP like Korea, in accordance with COM:PRP. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 10:25, 23 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Then how is your photo I linked above different then mine? Don (talk) 16:30, 23 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@WPPilot there is no focus on a particular building in my photo you mentioned. The tag you're referring to is not an FoP template but a no-FoP tenplate that serves to warn re-users not to make crops to copyrighted object, as well as aiding the categorization of the photo to a category where other users can monitor problematic images tagged with this template (hence also a tracking template). Images found to intentionally focus a copyrighted work are typically nominated for deletion.
Same thing is for {{NoFoP-South Korea}}. It is only valid if the copyrighted work is incidental to the overall theme of the image. But your image that I nominated does not show the building in an incidental manner, but rather as a main subject of the image, so the no-FoP template is invalid for the image. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 21:11, 23 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Please address the issue that a court ruled FOP allows the use, but in the only case you reference the court ruled in the other direction. Claiming that a copyright case under this law that fails is somehow disconnected from other copyright FOP claims but as of this point you have not in any way provided any links references or case citations that in any way support your claim.
"take note maybe the cases involve" that is a guess at least in English.
"It is only valid if the copyrighted work is incidental to the overall theme of the image. But your image that I nominated does not show the building in an incidental manner, but rather as a main subject of the image," Is this your opinion but in fact the tarmac, the planes wing and the sky all make up a composition of the photo. How is it you get to be the judge and jury on how much building your photo can show and decide that my photo shows too much? Who is the say that the wing was not my main subject and the buildings got in the way of a nice photo and the buildings should now pay me? Don (talk) 03:46, 24 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@WPPilot the building is the main subject of your photo. The tarmac is just secondary and the plane wing is nearly unnoticeable unless you swing your eyesight to the left. It is not correct to claim that your image only shows the building in an incidental manner. Don't compare your image with my image which does not show any building as intended or main subject. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 04:18, 24 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Your opinion is not correct. How were you able to get into my head to challenge what I photographed? Were you in the plane? 
Please address the issue that a court ruled FOP allows the use, but in the only case you reference the court ruled in the other direction.
Claiming that a copyright case under this law that fails is somehow disconnected from other copyright FOP claims but as of this point you have not in any way provided any links references or case citations that in any way support your claim. Are you claiming that the court ruling was incorrect? This is closed. It was only you and this other user in the previous conversation started in 2019 the user that you canvased referenced below. Here is my point. You have not provided any support and went to 2 of 3 users that supported you patrolling, many years ago (an admin none the less here on commons). but this is commons and not Wikipedia. I disagree with you being the gatekeeper on size issues. Size does matter yes, but the subject is key.
Lastly your continued augmenting of the tag you're referring to is not an FoP template but a no-FoP tenplate that serves to warn re-users not to make crops to copyrighted object, (it says nothing of the sort??) as well as aiding the categorization of the photo to a category where other users can monitor problematic images tagged with this template (hence also a tracking template). Images found to intentionally focus a copyrighted work are typically nominated for deletion. Your adding thoughts from your mind in between the facts on the templates, Now letws actually look at what is says:
Copyright warning: A subject in this image is protected by copyright.
This image features an architectural or artistic work, photographed from a public space in South Korea. Article 35 of South Korean Copyright Act provides freedom of panorama exception, but for non-commercial purposes only. In particular, the exception does not apply if "the reproduction is made for the purpose of selling its copies." Such non-commercial provision does not conform to Commons:Licensing. However, in accordance with Article 35-3 of South Korean Copyright Act, it is allowed if an architectural or artistic work is incidentally included in the main object.
If a copyrighted architectural or artistic work is contained in this image and it is a substantial reproduction, this photo cannot be licensed under a free license, and will be deleted. Framing this image to focus on the copyrighted work is also a copyright violation.
Before reusing this content, ensure that you have the right to do so. You are solely responsible for ensuring that you do not infringe someone else's copyrights. See our general disclaimer for more information.
I took a photo of the wing at a public airport. This tag is sufficient and I am done with the conversation. Cheers.. Don (talk) 05:38, 24 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@WPPilot what wing? You're now trying to claim that the wing is the focus. The wing is just a secondary part of the photo, but the main object is the building itself. Don't twist facts, the original intent is the airport building itself.
The court ruling? Possibly unclear or incorrect because commercial exploitation of copyrighted public structures in Korea is not in accordance to the Article 35(2) of the copyright law. There has been no significant change to the FoP clause of Korea, which states..."Works of art, etc. exhibited at all times at an open place as referred to in the proviso to paragraph (1) may be reproduced and used by any means: Provided, That in any of the following cases, the same shall not apply:...4. Where the reproduction is made for the purpose of selling its copies." JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 09:10, 24 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Excuse me but you did not take the picture, nor can you tell me what it is I was focused upon. The building is only 10 percent of the composition. I was actually taking a picture of the lone man on the tarmac, but I used the wing in our conversation above as a example. ONLY the photographer knows the actual subject. Your lack of logic is astonishing to me. Frankly speaking I could care less if the photo is deleted. I feel I have made a strong case for it to remain. In the center of the photo is the sky. This is proximally 70% of the actual picture and was the frames center point Next is the tarmac, it consumes more of the total photos pixels then does the building, according to Photoshop. Also included in the shot is another airplane, as well as ramp equipment and other items. Now let's look at public places, such as International Airports. I did check with an attorney in South Korea and was told that the ONLY way the building, situated in a public place could be copyrighted is if it has a copyright registration certificate for the airport.
  1. Can you please provide the copy of the copyright registration certificate for the airport.
  2. Can you please provide the copy of the copyright registration certificate for the design.
  3. Has anyone here on commons EVER filed a complaint against a photo of this airport?
I was told that similar to the US laws you must have a copyright registration certificate filed to secure a copyright registration for a public place and international terminal. Just to keep you happy I will again send a e mail to the designer and see if we can generate a reply. I also reached out to the Korean Intellectual Property Office (KIPO) for more information as well as the Incheon International Airport Corporation. Let's wait for a reply from one of these groups and for the record I am willing to accept whatever its position is.
Once again you jump to conclusions after removing the same template you have on a photo of a building in your country and to me this seems like a double standard. The notice never mentioned anything to do with cropping, it was a warning to others not to use the picture in a way that would create a copyright violation.
I have for the record reached out now to an IP lawyer in country, the designer and the airport authority. I have sent not 1 but 2 e mails to the designer and a link to the photo as well making them aware of it yet no one has replied in any way or raised an objection, other than you. Incheon International Airport terminal 2 is a public place. It is accessible to the general public and is not subject to any restrictions on entry or exit.
While I really could care less but that said it has been entertaining indulging in this conversation. I am going to repost the disclaimer that I originally found on your photo on this photo. It would make sense to me that if the designer has issue with the photo, and now has been made aware of it, that it would reply. 
As a photographer I own the photo, I took the photo and I have every right to register and copyright the photo here in the US.
It is a bit startling to me to think that someone else can own the photo that is unrelated to me.
Your story seems to require a lot of supposition and follows down a dusty path, but I respect your enthusiasm just don't become too overzealous in your quest Cheers! Don (talk) 17:52, 24 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@WPPilot there is no need to register copyrights: the law follows the Berne Convention standard of "copyright from the moment of creation": Article 10(2): A copyright shall commence from the time of its creation, and shall not require a fulfillment of any procedures or formalities. The attorney you contacted failed to know that copyright exists from the moment a work was created, and nothing in the law (English copy online) states that a work in public place needs to be registered in order for the work to obtain copyright. A work in a public place does not lose copyright because of public exposure.
COM:PRP standard principle means we should not wait for a complaint from architects, sculptors, or muralists before taking down copyrighted public structures. It is against the spirit of the Definition of Free Cultural Works (which Commons enshrines) to continue hosting copyrighted public structures of Korea, like Incheon Airport. Only a change in the law of Korea to remove that fourth condition prohibiting the sale of copies of those works will finally permit the hosting of airport building and all other copyrighted public structures of Korea on Commons.
If you insist that the image you took does not show the airport as main subject (or de minimis), then be prepared for comments of many other users and admins here; you are already trying to change the context of the image during the time this deletion request is made. But the original context remains: the image intentionally shows the airport building, with other elements secondary. Don't claim that my image intentionally includes a building in my country; I only photographed the river as the main object and the buildings are very distant and trivial (so that the noFoP tag is valid). Don't try to twist things.
The designer you contacted must permit commercially-licensed images of the building they authored, and they must send that permission to Wikimedia thru email at permissions-commons@wikimedia.org (source: COM:VRTS).
Korea FOP remains unacceptable for Commons and more images of contemporary public structures of Korea will be deleted from the media repository site just like hundreds of deletions before, unless, as I said above, the law is changed to abolish the fourth condition ("Where the reproduction is made for the purpose of selling its copies"). The condition that prohibits many commercial uses of images. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 18:19, 24 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I FYI am involved in a case over copyrights in the USA, right now. I know how it works.
The ONLY thing you have done since this conversation started is craft words. Even the link provided below says that the laws regarding this issue are evolving, nevertheless I have gone out of my way to contact every agency in the list to obtain clarifications from them and I am willing to accept whatever that replay might be.
Lastly, I could care less about the photo. Countries all over the world have laws that are rarely used or antiquated, and it would seem that this might be the case here. The nice lawyer said that just like in the US for an agency to bring a copyright case upon someone it must show the photo was registered before filing a lawsuit.
The law in South Korea requires a negotiation if you read this: Relevant laws—the 파노라마의 자유 section in the PDF that is what I am doing but Rome was not built in a day so let's see what the people I have contacted say, okay? Don (talk) 19:02, 24 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I am not aware of any recent civil cases nor have FOP restrictions changed in South Korea since last year's discussion. Relevant laws—the 파노라마의 자유 section in the PDF—still do not allow commercial use (판매의 목적으로 복제하는 경우). ✗plicit 03:43, 24 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    The link you provide references a case referred to as Oak Lounge
    "In 2018, the Seoul Central District Court ruled in favor of the Oak Lounge, a bar in Seoul, South Korea, in a copyright infringement case against the Korea Copyright Protection Agency (KCPA). The KCPA had accused the Oak Lounge of infringing on the copyrights of 14 songs that were played in the bar without a license.
    The Oak Lounge argued that it was exempt from copyright infringement because the music was played as part of its "ambient noise" and was not intended to be a central attraction for customers. The court agreed with the Oak Lounge, ruling that the music was not played in a way that was likely to harm the copyright holders.
    The case also raised important questions about the scope of copyright protection in the digital age. In particular, the court had to consider whether or not the music played in the Oak Lounge constituted a "public performance" under South Korean copyright law. The court ultimately found that the music did not qualify as a public performance because it was played as part of the bar's ambient noise and was not intended to be the main attraction for customers.
    The Oak Lounge copyright case is an important reminder that copyright law is complex and evolving. While the court ruled in favor of the bar, and on the EN site once again the courts ruled in favor of the author, and it was refiled and settled out of court it would seem to me that the laws are far from settled and the South Korean people are still working out the details in the 21st century digital age we live in.
    I mention above that I have reached out, simply for my own edification and education to each and every one of the parties involved.  Don (talk) 18:34, 24 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Files in Category:Jacques Le Chevallier[edit]

Per Commons:Copyright rules by territory/France there's no FoP in France, or more precisely it doesn't allow for commercial usage which compatible with Commons. In the meantime the artist of these stained glass windows, Jacques Le Chevallier, died in 1987. So these images are copyrighted until at least 2058. If not longer due to their status being renewed by the URAA. Although I'll leave that up to the closing administrator to decide.

Adamant1 (talk) 00:46, 8 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Colmar StMatthieu 51.JPG is gothic stained glass from the 1470s! --Chris06 (talk) 09:03, 8 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The file is also in Category:20th-century stained-glass windows in Haut-Rhin and Category:Jacques Le Chevallier, which I assume is for a reason. If I were to guess it's probably because Jacques Le Chevallier restored part of it at some point or something. Either that or categorized wrong, but regardless, if it's a "20th-century stained-glass windows in Haut-Rhin" that was created by Jacques Le Chevallier then there's clearly part of the window that is modern and therefore copyrighted. Unless its a 1/1 recreation of a window from 1470s, but then IMO it's miss-categorized. Although I couldn't find any evidence of that anyway. --Adamant1 (talk) 18:56, 8 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Is restoration work copyrighted? --Chris06 (talk) 05:21, 9 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Restoration work can retain its own copyright depending on the type of work and if ot to what degree its different from the original. I assume it wasn't a simple touch up to the corner of the window or something similarly minimal or there'd be no reason to say it was created in 20th century or credit it to Jacques Le Chevallier in the first place. Although I couldn't find an example of the orginial when I looked to determine exactly how much is new or to what degree. So its really anyone's guess. Except some part of it is newer and was created by Jacques Le Chevallier. --Adamant1 (talk) 07:34, 9 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It simply looks completely like a piece of late gothic art. --Chris06 (talk) 13:24, 9 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Moderns stained glass windows can "look" like late gothic art. Really, that's kind of the point in them to begin with, but aomething "looking" late gothic doesn't necessarily mean it is, obviously, and at least the bottom half of the window looks a lot like Jacques Le Chevallier's other work. Are you going to argue none of the windows in the images I nominated for deletion are by him just because they look like they are in a similar art style to ones made in the 14th century? --Adamant1 (talk) 16:13, 9 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Keep, close for lack of valid reason for deletion. Mere presence of a category is not enough to produce a suspicion of copyright infringement. Nemo 18:04, 23 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'd say the same for the keeping the images based on the mere claim that the window looks old. At least the existence of a category, along with the fact that's one for some someone who makes stained glass windows that look exactly like the ones we are talking about, is enough doubt to justify deleting the images. --Adamant1 (talk) 19:44, 23 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


File:Coat of arms of the german Family Hewing..jpg[edit]

Schaut man auf die Benutzerseitze, geht es hier eher um die Darstellung der eigenen Fähigkeiten als Entwerfer schöner Wappen. Niemand weiß, ob es die Familie Hewing überhaupt gibt (Fantasiewappen?) GerritR (talk) 08:34, 8 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Ashu Sir 1.jpg[edit]

Possilbe copyvio: The uploader already uploaded another possible copyvio https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Ashu_Sir.jpg CoffeeEngineer (talk) 10:02, 8 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:CITIZENS FOR RESPONSIBILITY AND ETHICS IN WASHINGTON v. DONALD J. TRUMP.pdf[edit]

This file was initially tagged by FunIsOptional as Copyvio (Copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: Copyrighted, found no evidence of free license elsewhere. Originally tagged as Template:PD-USGov-Judiciary which is not correct Yann (talk) 10:26, 8 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:By ovedc - Great Pyramid of Giza - A 20.jpg[edit]

Redundant. Almost the same as "File:Khafre's Pyramid and Giza Solar boat museum.jpg"; also wrong pyramid name. Frunsorl (talk) 10:56, 8 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:By ovedc - Great Pyramid of Giza - A 24.jpg[edit]

Redundant. Almost the same as "File:Khafre's Pyramid and Giza Solar boat museum.jpg"; also wrong pyramid name. Frunsorl (talk) 10:57, 8 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Logo gnis2.jpg[edit]

This file was initially tagged by Habertix as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: Logo non libre - voir https://web.archive.org/web/20160323202731/http://www.gnis.fr/ qui montre son utilisation en 2016 Simple enough? Yann (talk) 11:02, 8 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Le gnis ayant été dissous et remplacé par Semae, le logo peut être éliminé. Arn (talk) 13:50, 8 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Arn: Nous gardons les anciens documents si les droits d'auteur le permettent. Yann (talk) 15:29, 8 October 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:Berdan Civata Logo.svg[edit]

Licensing must be changed. Creative Commons License is not suitable for this file. Brd1979 (talk) 09:20, 27 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Kept: no valid reason for deletion, nominator meanwhile found out how to change the license tag. --Rosenzweig τ 10:07, 27 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Berdan Civata Logo.svg[edit]

This item has no use or connection with any page within Wikimedia projects. Brd1979 (talk) 12:30, 8 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Wa Baudwin måssotea Båclin.ogg[edit]

similar file, more complete, was uploaded (Wa måssotea Båclin Flipe Bådwin.ogg) Lucyin (talk) 12:34, 8 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Знак село Калга.jpg[edit]

такое фото уже есть. Andrey45mt9 (talk) 13:27, 8 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

{{speedydelete|F8}} Andrey45mt9 (talk) 07:47, 14 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Palace of Abamelek-Lazarev Prince (Moika, 23) 83.jpg[edit]

the same as previous Vaija (talk) 15:48, 8 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Palace of Abamelek-Lazarev Prince (Moika, 23) 85.jpg[edit]

distortion of image Vaija (talk) 15:55, 8 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Vladimir Putin official photo 16.jpg[edit]

Дубликат File:Sergey_Shoigu_and_Vladimir_Putin_20_July_2013_02.jpeg MasterRus21thCentury (talk) 16:26, 8 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:עטרה פריש.jpg[edit]

The copyright-statement on the source-site is a bit ambigous."אידיבי בעריכת אלי שגב למען עושר מידע עברי על קולנוע וקידום הקולנוע הישראלי · תכנינו המקוריים מוגשים תחת רישיון cc-by-sa והשאר שייכים לבעליהם החוקיים." Now, is this image really their "original content" or not? -- Túrelio (talk) 16:55, 8 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Riga Landmarks 23.jpg[edit]

There is no freedom of panorama in Latvia and the photo violates sculptor's copyright. Sculptor et:Jüri Ojaver is still living. Taivo (talk) 17:22, 8 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Taivo: Have not been able to find contact details for the Estonian sculptor Juri Ojaver but this picture is featured on his wikipedia page so would appreciate your help with his contact details so I can seek his approval and hopefully avoid this deletion of a silhouette (not a detailed representation) of his sculpture. Thank you --SM:!) (talk) 15:30, 9 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Mapparium Afro-Eurasia.jpg[edit]

The en:Mapparium is a non-free artistic work, therefore this is a non-free DW (no FOP-US, not de minimis). See Commons:Deletion requests/File:Mapparium.jpg for some of the precedents. DMacks (talk) 17:25, 8 October 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:Europa stamps 1973[edit]

Per Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Germany German stamps are copyrighted until at least 70+ years after the designer's death. In this case the designer, Leif Frimann Anisdahl, seems to still be alive. So these images should be deleted as COPYVIO until an undetermined date.

Adamant1 (talk) 05:59, 26 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --Rosenzweig τ 15:56, 3 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Files in Category:Europa stamps 1973[edit]

Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Yugoslavia says nothing about stamps and the artist of these ones, Leif Frimann Anisdahl, seems to still be alive. So the images should be deleted as COPYVIO until an undetermined date unless someone can provide evidence to contrary.

Adamant1 (talk) 20:50, 8 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

According to the laws of the former Yugoslavia, state signs (including postage signs) are exempt from copyright. The same applies to the legislation of Serbia and Montenegro. Andrey Korzun (talk) 10:04, 16 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Where do the laws of the former Yugoslavia say that state signs are exempt from copyright or even that stamps are including in that? If you look at Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Yugoslavia it says nothing about stamps. Let alone does it say that they or state signs are PD. Even Template:PD-YugoslaviaGov just says "certain official state documents such as law texts" and stamps aren't law text. That's not even to say anything about Serbia and Montenegro, which have essentially the same rules as Yugoslavia. So what exactly are you basing your comment on? --Adamant1 (talk) 12:18, 16 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It seems difficult to find the original of the Yugoslav Copyright Law (1978). But we have a Serbian copyright law (1998), which largely replicated the law of the former Yugoslavia. It contains Article 6, paragraph 2. “The following shall not be considered works of authorship: 1) Laws, decrees and other regulations; 2) Official materials of government agencies and agencies discharging public functions.” Postage stamps are official materials of the state postal department. Link to the law https://www.wipo.int/wipolex/en/text/498378 Andrey Korzun (talk) 10:15, 18 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Most people and countries don't usually consider postage stamps to be de facto PD under any kind of clause saying "official materials" the state are. In this case if "official materials" just meant "everything created by the state" as your trying to treat it then there'd be zero reason for the first point of the regulation saying laws, decrees, and other regulations are public domain. Since all of those are obviously "Official materials of government agencies and agencies discharging public functions." So there's clearly still things created the government that aren't PD regardless and I assume one of those thing are postage stamps. Since again, most countries that have similar clauses don't include postage stamps in them and there's zero evidence that Yugoslavia did. Or for that matter even Serbian to begin with, but even if stamps of Serbia are de facto PD based on that rational it doesn't automatically conclude that the same would go for Yugoslavia and personally I don't think it does for the reasons I've given. Mainly that there's no reason the law would specifically state laws, decrees, and other regulations are PD and then go on to say "Official materials" also are if "Official materials" meant everything created by the state regardless. For instance I assume buildings, statues, bridges, and the like aren't covered in that. Really, there's no reason stamps would be for reasons I have zero urge to get into. Suffice to say, it's way more likely they aren't PD then the opposite. --Adamant1 (talk) 14:41, 18 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:MicroG Einstellungen Hauptbildschirm.png[edit]

screenshots are derivative works not own work KazyKazyKazakhstan (talk) 21:06, 8 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Is that so? I never heard of that. Any source or so?
If I assume this is true, then I have asked the software (microG) authors for permission. Otherwise, does that imply/mean the images are now licensed under the Apache2 license, i.e. the license of the software? If so, just a license change would be needed.
--Rugk (talk) 10:02, 27 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Was made aware of Commons:Screenshots which clearly states that screenshots of freely licensed software can be used. As such, I propose to keep the image and close this deletion request as rejected. --rugk (talk) 10:49, 3 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Keep It consists of short texts and simple icons which are ineligible of copyright protection. See Commons:Deletion requests/File:华为P7设置界面.jpeg. 0x0a (talk) 15:23, 9 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Keep The app depicted is free and open-source software, licensed under Apache 2.0 as a whole and partly under other OSI-approved licenses, and as such, screenshots are explicitly eligible to be hosted here. Parts of the UI not belonging to the app are trivial geometric shapes and inconsequential copyright-wise. That said, the screenshot should not be marked as "Own work", but attributed to the microG project under the Apache 2.0 license. I also note that the nominator seems to have been blocked as a sockpuppet, and that it seems way overkill to make a deletion request for simply misstating something as "own work" (under mistaken understanding) when it ought to simply be correctly attributed with the right license. LjL (talk) 01:24, 13 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:MicroG Selbstprüfung.png[edit]

screenshots are derivative works not own work KazyKazyKazakhstan (talk) 21:06, 8 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Is that so? I never heard of that. Any source or so?
If I assume this is true, then I have asked the software (microG) authors for permission. Otherwise, does that imply/mean the images are now licensed under the Apache2 license, i.e. the license of the software? If so, just a license change would be needed.
--rugk (talk) 10:03, 27 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Was made aware of Commons:Screenshots which clearly states that screenshots of freely licensed software can be used. As such, I propose to keep the image and close this deletion request as rejected. --rugk (talk) 10:49, 3 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Keep It consists of texts and small icons which are ineligible of copyright protection. See Commons:Deletion requests/File:华为P7设置界面.jpeg. 0x0a (talk) 15:16, 9 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Keep The app depicted is free and open-source software, licensed under Apache 2.0 as a whole and partly under other OSI-approved licenses, and as such, screenshots are explicitly eligible to be hosted here. Parts of the UI not belonging to the app are trivial geometric shapes and inconsequential copyright-wise. That said, the screenshot should not be marked as "Own work", but attributed to the microG project under the Apache 2.0 license. I also note that the nominator seems to have been blocked as a sockpuppet, and that it seems way overkill to make a deletion request for simply misstating something as "own work" (under mistaken understanding) when it ought to simply be correctly attributed with the right license. LjL (talk) 01:24, 13 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:LasAnodConflictMap.png[edit]

I have realized this map has very little sources and is wrong in Someplaces I think this is better of deleted I am sorry for the incomitance. HuntersHistory (talk) 23:45, 8 October 2023 (UTC) I have removed It from the wiki and think this is better off deleted because it doesn't have a lot of sources and some of the info is wrong, plus the person I got it off didn't really provide much so I think it should be deleted I am sorry once again I am new and don't want disinformation out there. - HuntersHistory (talk) 00:18, 9 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Finnedlio4wagon4 one of the owners of the map reached out to me in the discussion page and has provided sources and stated your earlier map called LasAnodConflictMap appears to me to be correct, I am thinking this should not be deleted because it could be true based on these sources.]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bwfKhdsoQiA], [4]https://mapcarta.com/N1404230865 [5]https://puntlandpost.net/2023/10/08/wararkii-u-danbeeyay-ee-dagaal-xalay-ka-dhacay-magaalada-ceerigaabo/ HuntersHistory (talk) 10:56, 10 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
All of the information is fragmentary and is not a source of information that would indicate that this map is correct. Freetrashbox (talk) 20:29, 11 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It would say its not fragmentary. Frontline in western Cayn is east of Qorilugud to Galgal (source); front line in northern Cayn is Buq Dharkeyn (source); frontline in Sool is between Oog and Guumays (source); frontline in Sanaag is southeast of Erigabo (source ); in the rest, today SSC Leader said non-SSC elections not allowed in Sool (source). Eastern Sanaag intermittently leans towards SSC in camaraderie / militarily (source), although is politically aligned primarily with Puntland, with municipalities in biggest cities like Badhan solely holding Puntland elections (source), thus showing major east Sanaag cities under Puntland. Therefore the map is correct. Finnedlio4wagon4 (talk) 00:34, 12 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
YouTube are not reliable sources. The Puntland Post article only states that there was fighting in Erigabo, which is not evidence that it is SSC territory. Freetrashbox (talk) 11:55, 12 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/2023/10/08&oldid=824518848"