Commons:Deletion requests/2023/10/16

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
15 October 2023
17 October 2023
Deletion requests on 16 October 2023

October 16[edit]

File:Shri Surya Bhagvan bazaar art, c.1940's.jpg[edit]

This is signed "S. Sritaram", so the artist is not "unknown" as claimed. Per [1], the artist is named Sri Sitaram and was alive in 2009, 77 years old. So this is still protected by copyright in India (as well as the US) and should be deleted. Rosenzweig τ 00:53, 16 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:OKDHS Logo Vertical FullColour HighRes.png[edit]

This file was initially tagged by Armbrust as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: https://oklahoma.gov/okdhs.html.html. COM:TOO? Alternatively, could be kept with COM:VRT confirmation that the uploader is a legitimate representative of OKHS. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:57, 16 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

TOO is borderline, I would say. Rather delete. PaterMcFly (talk) 11:17, 16 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:VlaamsBelangPoster.JPG[edit]

COM:POSTERs are temporarily display, cannot benefit from FOP A1Cafel (talk) 02:53, 16 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


File:Flag of Homer City, Pennsylvania.jpg[edit]

This is presented as the flag of a town in the USA, but it is not. It appears to be a user-created flag and is not official in any way ChadeCr (talk) 05:09, 16 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:SSID-14623716 正音咀華.pdf[edit]

This book is published in 2018 with copyrighted content Midleading (talk) 08:18, 16 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Pages with new content: 7 to 8 (總序 "general introduction"), 9 to 14 (早期北京話珍稀文獻集成序 "introduction to Early Pekingese Rare Literature Collection"), 15 to 16 (正音咀華解題 "explanation of 正音咀華"), 150 (references), 475 to 476 (index/advertisement for the "Early Pekingese" series).
  • Pages with unoriginal content: 17 to 149 (book transcription with minimal novel footnotes), 150 to 474 (book scan).
Considering the small proportion and relatively worthless value of the new content, I would like to suggest redaction instead, as with wikisource:Template:Text removed / File:The Philadelphia Negro A Social Study.djvu.
I also would like to note that after examining other editions of 正音咀華 on Google Books, I continued with this scan (this file) for Wikisource as it was the cleanest. Fish bowl (talk) 22:37, 16 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I would like to replace the file with a redacted version soon to satisfy the deletion request, if there are no objections. Fish bowl (talk) 02:24, 28 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree. Most contents are mechanical copy of public domain materials. Jlhwung (talk) 16:03, 2 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I also agree that the copyrighted part can simply be hidden. Midleading (talk) 04:33, 4 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Midleading, Jlhwung, and Fish bowl: Could you please upload the redacted version over this one? Thanks, Yann (talk) 10:44, 24 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Files in Category:Samsung Galaxy S II[edit]

These photos contain copyrigthted system UI (TounchWiz) and three-party app UI. See COM:SS#Smartphones.

0x0a (talk) 10:30, 16 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Renata Tebaldi with Dina.jpg[edit]

No clear publication date. Carnby (talk) 10:53, 16 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Files in Category:Orders of Abkhazia[edit]

Non-free photos of 3d objects from copyrighted websites. Even those awards are PD, their photos per Commons:When to use the PD-Art tag#This does not apply to photographs of 3D works of art require photographers' permissions.

Komarof (talk) 10:56, 16 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:HK SYP Des Vouex Road West King Prawn restaurant menu closed May 2016 DSC.jpg[edit]

Copyrighted food menus in Hong Kong. Solomon203 (talk) 10:57, 16 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:04 Spannmittel mit Messintelligenz - Toplus IQ.jpg[edit]

possible copyvio Copyright: Ralf Breitenbacher M2k~dewiki (talk) 13:35, 16 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ralf Breitenbacher is employed by Hainbuch and the internal product photographer. All image rights are held by hainbuch. MrPfiffig account is managed by Hainbuch marketing department and therefore using the image. HrPfiffig (talk) 14:08, 16 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Please send this information by E-Mail to COM:VRT, so it can be properly archived for later reference. PaterMcFly (talk) 15:06, 16 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:Wilhelm Scream.ogg[edit]

This sample is a sound especially created and designed to be used as sound effects. As such, it's dubious it's ineligible for copyright. Dereckson (talk) 01:17, 25 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  •  Oppose The original film was Distant Drums (1951). I have not been able to determine if its copyright was properly renewed or if it has expired. I think the wide utilization across various (competing) organizations illustrates that this recording is too short to be eligible for copyright. Ke4roh (talk) 03:26, 25 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Kept: per discussion. --Krd 11:59, 29 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Wilhelm Scream.ogg[edit]

Frankly I disagree with the result of the 2016 discussion. Something being widely used does not indicate that it is public domain (plenty of copyrighted film screenshots are common Internet memes, after all). Furthermore, this is not "common property with no original authorship"; it is a recording from a 1950s film. Unless we can prove that the film is in the public domain, we should follow precautionary principle and assume that it's copyrighted. Di (they-them) (talk) 15:03, 16 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think the real question is whether a 1.6-second scream is copyrightable. I don't know what the jurisprudence is on this, but is this a case of fair use, which Commons doesn't use, or is the claim that it's not distinctive enough to be copyrightable (a dubious claim, in my opinion)? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:45, 16 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I would say that it's absolutely copyrightable. An actor recorded that scream intentionally for a film, there is clear creative input behind it. Di (they-them) (talk) 20:19, 16 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The question is, whether it's creative enough. COM:TOO should be applicable to sounds as well. PaterMcFly (talk) 06:27, 17 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
To speculate on whether or not the recording qualifies as a creative work that can be copyrighted would be just that: speculation. If we have to speculate on whether or not it's copyrighted, it should be deleted per precautionary principle.
Determining whehter something (typically a logo) satisfies TOO for a given country is always a bit of guesswork. We've been doing this for a very long time, though. --PaterMcFly (talk) 07:14, 18 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Closed discussions from Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Tatiana Matlina
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 uploaded by Tatiana Matlina (talk · contribs)

Bogus licenses; whatever the copyright status of the coins, the photographs of the coins also have a copyright per Commons:When_to_use_the_PD-Art_tag#Photograph_of_an_old_coin_found_on_the_Internet. The websites from which these images were taken are all "© All rights reserved"

Эlcobbola talk 20:42, 4 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Deleted: INeverCry 00:09, 11 April 2013 (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 uploaded by Tatiana Matlina (talk · contribs)

Per {{PD-Cuba}}, government works have perpetual copyright. These are also contemporary coins (1997 and 2001 minting dates)

Эlcobbola talk 16:06, 11 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Deleted: INeverCry 00:30, 18 April 2013 (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 uploaded by Tatiana Matlina (talk · contribs)

No Commons:Freedom of panorama in Belarus. Created in 1990s.

EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:24, 18 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There is no FOP in Belarus -FASTILY 01:23, 26 March 2014 (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 uploaded by Tatiana Matlina (talk · contribs)

No Commons:Freedom of panorama in Belarus. Painter(s) information is necessary to determine copyrights status.

EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:27, 18 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    • Правила гласят про ограниченную форму свободы обзора: изображения защищенных авторским правом архитектурных работ, фотосъемок или работ изобразительного искусства (который включает скульптуры и статуи), которые постоянно расположены в публично доступных местах, могут быть изданы, только если изображенная защищенная авторским правом основная работа не основной предмет изображения, и изображение в некоммерческих целях.

Я считаю, что в файле File:Paintings in Church of Saints Simon and Helena 04.JPG витражи не являются основным предметом изображения. Цвет стёкол в окне-"розе" мало различим вообще, а два цветных окна в правом углу - также не основной предмет. Живописная картина запечатлена в совершенно нерезком качестве и не составляет даже 1/6 от площади фотографии.

Также, качество изображения витражей и живописи в файлах File:Paintings in Church of Saints Simon and Helena 05.JPG и File:Stained-glass windows in Church of Saints Simon and Helena 02.jpg также является весьма посредственным и нерезким, что никак не может содействовать коммерческому использованию этих фото.

Также, помещение этих фотографии на Викисклад не преследует никакой коммерческой цели. Поэтому, моё мнение, что указанные мною три фото не нарушают закон об ограничении панорамы в Республике Беларусь, в отличие от фотографий с деревянной резьбой из Красного Костёла или витражей из Пушкинской библиотеки.

Хотя, я бы поспорила насчёт файла File:Stained-glass windows in Library of Pushkin in Minsk 01.JPG, где витражи - не основной предмет изображения, а сфотографирован просто вестибюль библиотеки. Tatiana Matlina (talk) 19:13, 18 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There is no FOP in Belarus -FASTILY 01:23, 26 March 2014 (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 uploaded by Tatiana Matlina (talk · contribs)

No Commons:Freedom of panorama in Russia for 2D works. Artists are know, see w:ru:Киевская (станция метро, Арбатско-Покровская линия).

EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:26, 5 April 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Well-Informed Optimist (talk) 13:14, 15 April 2018 (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 uploaded by Tatiana Matlina (talk · contribs)

No FOP in Belarus

— Racconish 💬 10:26, 20 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:16, 4 July 2019 (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 uploaded by Tatiana Matlina (talk · contribs)

No Commons:Freedom of panorama in Belarus.

EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:04, 28 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. — Racconish 💬 09:47, 16 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Files uploaded by Tatiana Matlina (talk · contribs)[edit]

Dubious own works: too many (15) different cameras used or no original metadata at all.

Komarof (talk) 17:22, 16 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Комаров, какого лешего ты стал считать мои фотокамеры и лезть в мои фотографии? Тебе больше заняться нечем? Своей жизни нету? Или денег на фотокамеры и телефоны нету??? Ты, идиот, позанимайся столько лет, сколько я, современным искусством, пофотографируй столько художественных выставок, сколько я пофотографировала, а потом лезь модерировать мои работы, бездарь! Лишишь целый культурный пласт их личных фотографий — твою фамилию всё равно никто не запомнит в этой жизни. Как был никем, так и останешься. Еле сдерживаюсь, чтобы матом тут не писать! Герострат хренов! Tatiana Markina 22:38, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
  •  Keep  Neutral Notwithstanding the incivility above, the uploader doesn't really have a track record of lying about "own work". (Some of their photos have been deleted due to FoP, and some of their uploads not claimed to be own work have been deleted for incorrect copyright status, but I can't find any examples of photos which were falsely claimed to be self-photographed.) So unless additional evidence is provided in favor of deletion (such as links to prior publication on an external website), I will default to COM:AGF when they repeat their claims here that the photos are own work. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 10:48, 20 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • King of Hearts, thus, your position is directly contrary to COM:EVID and COM:PCP policies, thanks. And since you've decided to oblige me to act contrary to the rules, I've added a few examples to the list above. --Komarof (talk) 11:10, 20 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • I can't find any examples of photos which were falsely claimed to be self-photographed — this happens if you are not too determined to look for them. File:Viktar Markavets.jpg - clear derivative of the printed photo of person who died in 2013, uploaded as own work of 2016. the uploader doesn't really have a track record of lying about "own work" — "Where does a wise man hide a pebble?" — "On the beach." "Where does a wise man hide a leaf?" "In the forest." --Komarof (talk) 12:04, 20 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • Thanks for presenting additional evidence. Contrary to what you claim, this is exactly how COM:PCP and COM:AGF should interact. The rule of thumb is: anyone may bring a DR on mere suspicion, but if the images have EXIF and the uploader continues to claim own work, you can't really demand additional proof from them if you don't provide more evidence on your end. I am withdrawing my "keep" !vote, but I am uncomfortable !voting to delete until the uploader has been given a chance to present a defense (which they are unable to do because of the civility block). -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:05, 20 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Andrea Tenuta.jpg[edit]

Still photo from the Argentine movie " La búsqueda" (1985). It is currently in the public domain in Argentina (25 years after publication for photographs), but it was not in 1996 at URAA time, thus this image is still protected by copyright in the US. Following COM:PCP we cannot keep this image. Günther Frager (talk) 18:12, 16 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


File:У краєзнавчому музеї школи "Світлиця" с. Нове Село.jpg[edit]

Не категоризований , не якісний, порушення авторських прав Любмир (talk) 18:27, 16 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Kostrowicki Jerzy Samuel (1918-2002), academic, photo portrait, ca 1950.jpg[edit]

the provided source does not give the licence selected by the uploader Darellur (talk) 18:44, 16 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  •  Keep "PD-EU-no author disclosure" is correct license. --RAN (talk) 19:20, 16 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Kdv-wappen.jpg[edit]

Urheber ist nicht die KdstV Bavaria, sondern ein Franz Schreiner aus Würzburg. Dessen Todestag ist unbekannt, also könnte das Werk noch geschützt sein. GerritR (talk) 18:50, 16 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Comment I'm not sure if de:Franz Scheiner (not Schreiner) is actually the artist here. He was a lithographer, lived from 1847 to 1917, but later in his life he headed his own company, the Kunstanstalt Franz Scheiner, with 100 employees or so. Per de:Katholischer Deutscher Verband farbentragender Studentenkorporationen and the students corporations shown, this postcard (I assume it's a postcard) is from ca. 1907 to 1909. So it could be by Scheiner himself, or by an employee. It's not old enough for {{PD-old-assumed}} yet. --Rosenzweig τ 07:20, 17 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Wie Rosenzweig ja bereits geschrieben hat, ist de:Franz Scheiner aus Würzburg der verantwortliche Herausgeber dieser gescannten Ansichtskarte und kann daher auch als der Autor angesehen werden. Da Scheiner 1917 gestorben ist, ist das Werk heute, 106 Jahre nach seinem Tod gemeinfrei. -- K4210 (talk) 13:59, 8 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Rafał Piech.jpg[edit]

copyright violation. Photo taken from https://siemianowice.pl/wladze-miasta/prezydent-miasta/ Masti (talk) 19:14, 16 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Support – the website is clearly not marked as being freely-licenced, especially not being CC0-licenced. The source is an official city website, but it's not a legal document and consequently not exempt from Polish copyright law. Msz2001 (talk) 19:27, 16 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Jest to strona państwowa. Zdjęcie to znajduje się w tzw. "biuletynie informacji publicznej", który jak sama nazwa mówi może być używany w celach informacyjnych. Dodatkowo w zakładce "Ochrona Danych Osobowych" znajduje się informacja: "Prezydent Miasta Siemianowice Śląskie, aby realizować zadania dla Mieszkańców Siemianowic Śląskich oraz Kontrahentów niebędących mieszkańcami naszego Miasta, gromadzi, wykorzystuje i archiwizuje wiele danych osobowych. Staramy się aby nigdy nie pobierać od Państwa zbyt wielu informacji, ograniczając się do tych, które są dla nas niezbędne żeby zrealizować daną sprawę." Zdjęcie to według wielu użytkowników jest niezbędne do zrealizowania wpisu na wikipedii, więc spełnia on warunek podany w zamieszczonym punkcie, aby używać danych tylko do celów niezbędnych. Proszę o zaakceptowanie obrazu. Michał Królewski (talk) 08:02, 17 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"wielu użytkowników" to nie jest argument, który zadziała na Wikipedii.
Remove the picture, it is not freely licensed. Nadzik (talk) 13:32, 17 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ale przecież Wikipedia na tym nie zarabia to raz, bo przecież prawo autorskie chroni przed zarabianie i zniekształceniem pracy innych. A to przecież tylko funkcja informacyjna, która została dozwolona przez stronę miasta.
I jeszcze drugie pytanie: Jak np. dostałem ulotkę tej partii z Rafałem Piechoty to mogę wtedy przesłać jego wizerunek z tej ulotki? Jaki wtedy macie argument? Boicie się prawa, nawet wtedy gdy robi ktoś coś legalnie. Na stronie wyborów 2023 opublikowałiście dane frekwencji w wyborach - gdzie na stronie PKW jest napisane, że można je powszechnie wykorzystywać? Czy to czasami nie hipokryzja? Od razu mówię, że nie chcę was "atakować" ani działać przeciwko wikipedii, ja jedynie zwracam uwagę na pewne rzeczy. Michał Królewski (talk) 05:17, 18 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Obszerniejsze wyjaśnienie tematu praw autorskich zawarłem na Twojej stronie dyskusji. Msz2001 (talk) 09:05, 18 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Panie Michale, jeśli Panu zależy aby to zdjęcie mogło być użyte w Wikipedii, sugeruję aby napisał Pan do autora zdjęcia o możliwość udostępnienia go na Wikipedii na wolnej licencji. Autor może skorzystać z procesu opisanego pod tym linkiem: Commons:Volunteer_Response_Team
Tymczasem wrzuciłem do artykułu zdjęcie, które znalazłem na jednym z filmów na YouTube, oznaczone licencją Creative Commons. Pozdrawiam — Dudek1337 (talk) 15:19, 23 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Cierre de campaña de Menem, 1995.png[edit]

The image appeared in the front page of Argentine newspaper Clarin in 12 May 1995. The photographer is Mario Cocchi. The image is in the public domain in Argentina, but it is still protected by copyright in the US (70 year pma). Günther Frager (talk) 19:29, 16 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Keep The photograph was taken, published and registered in Argentina, under the copyright legislation of that country. The copyright situation in another country is absolutely irrelevant. Also, the photo is before URAA (1995).--FelipeRev (talk) 22:54, 16 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The licence policy requires files to have a free license or be in the public domain in both its country of origin and the United States. Also this is not a URAA case because the photo was never in the public domain in the United States (the pre-requisite to restore its copyright). The United States is part of the Berne Convention since 1 March 1989, meaning they grant automatically copyright protection to all published works in member states. Günther Frager (talk) 23:26, 16 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Menem lanza su campaña.png[edit]

The image appeared in the front page of Argentine newspaper Clarin in 5 February 1995. The photographer is Gustavo Fazio. The image is in the public domain in Argentina, but it is still protected by copyright in the US (70 year pma). Günther Frager (talk) 19:30, 16 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Keep The photograph was taken, published and registered in Argentina, under the copyright legislation of that country. The copyright situation in another country is absolutely irrelevant. Also, the photo is before URAA (1995).--FelipeRev (talk) 22:53, 16 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The licence policy requires files to have a free license or be in the public domain in both its country of origin and the United States. Also this is not a URAA case because the photo was never in the public domain in the United States (the pre-requisite to restore its copyright). The United States is part of the Berne Convention since 1 March 1989, meaning they grant automatically copyright protection to all published works in member states. Günther Frager (talk) 23:27, 16 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Jagger and richards argentina 1995.jpg[edit]

Photo by Argentine press photographer Gustavo Amarelle taken in 1995. The image might be on the PD in Argentina (source doesn't cite first publication), but it is still protected in the US (70 years pma). Günther Frager (talk) 19:33, 16 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Floralis.pdf[edit]

COM:FOP Argentina violation: photograph of a sculpture. Omphalographer (talk) 19:45, 16 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Guðjón Samúelsson.jpg[edit]

Description says "unknown author", so the generic {{PD-old}} template isn't applicable (we don't know whether the photographer has been dead for more than 70 years), and as the immediate image source is an online newspaper article at visir.is, it isn't an established fact that the photographer is positively unknown (that visir.is doesn't mention the name doesn't necessarily mean that the photo was originally published anonymously), so I would be reluctant to apply {{PD-anon-70-IS}} as well. If we knew the original publication of this photo (it's most likely not the 2007 online article) and if it didn't mention the photographer's name, we could use PD-anon-70-IS. Gestumblindi (talk) 20:04, 16 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Diario Critica, noticias policiales 01.jpg[edit]

Scan from an Argentine newspaper published in 1962. The image as a drawing by José Miguel Heredia (1933-2009) that is still copyrighted (the image is being used in his enwiki entry). The text is in the public domain in Argentina if we consider it anonymous works (50 years after publication). However, the text is still protected in the US as it was copyrighted in Argentina in 1996. We can undelete this in 2080, after the copyright of the drawing expires. Günther Frager (talk) 20:09, 16 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Günther, please can you indicate wich exactly part of the text is "still protected in the US as it was copyrighted in Argentina in 1996"
As far as I can see the entire publication is dated "28 de Marzo de 1962". Even more, can you indicate who is the holder of copiright, in order to contact him/her/it and do an agreement, given the case? Thanks a lot. Fheredia (talk) 19:29, 17 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The United States entered in the Berne Convention in 1989 and among its duties was to restore all works that were copyrighted in the member states (Argentina in this case) but no in the US (mostly due some formalities). That restoration happened in 1st January 1996. You can read more at COM:URAA. I don't que your second sentence. It was published in 1962, copyright last for several years. If you want to contact the copyright holder, you get in touch with DNDA. Günther Frager (talk) 20:40, 17 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:HectorMarioSidoli.jpg[edit]

Photo taken from an Argentina magazine in 1999. It is still under copyright in the US. Günther Frager (talk) 20:14, 16 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi (once again) Gúnther. Please consider to read https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:HectorMarioSidoli.jpg License section
Esta imagen es de dominio público porque el copyright de esta fotografía, registrada en la Argentina, ha expirado. (Todas las obras fotográficas de más de 25 años de antigüedad pasan al dominio público luego de 20 años desde su primera publicación, conforme Ley 11.723, Artículo 34 y sus modificaciones, y el Artículo 7 inc. (4) del Convenio de Berna). Fheredia (talk) 20:04, 17 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Our licencing policy require the works to have a free license or be in the public domain in both its country of origin and in the United States. You are pointing out that it is in the public domain in the former, while I'm asserting it is copyrighted in the latter. To be specific, the United States is part of the Berne Convention since 1st March 1989. That means, that they protect automatically all published works from other member states. The copyright protection in the US is 95 years for corporate works. Günther Frager (talk) 20:19, 17 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Guillermo Guerrero.jpg[edit]

Photo taken from an Argentina magazine in 1999. It is still under copyright in the US. Günther Frager (talk) 20:14, 16 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi (again) Gúnther. Pleas econsider to read https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Guillermo_Guerrero.jpg License section
Esta imagen es de dominio público porque el copyright de esta fotografía, registrada en la Argentina, ha expirado. (Todas las obras fotográficas de más de 25 años de antigüedad pasan al dominio público luego de 20 años desde su primera publicación, conforme Ley 11.723, Artículo 34 y sus modificaciones, y el Artículo 7 inc. (4) del Convenio de Berna). Fheredia (talk) 20:01, 17 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Our licencing policy require the works to have a free license or be in the public domain in both its country of origin and in the United States. You are pointing out that it is in the public domain in the former, while I'm asserting it is copyrighted in the latter. To be specific, the United States is part of the Berne Convention since 1st March 1989. That means, that they protect automatically all published works from other member states. The copyright protection in the US is 95 years for corporate works. Günther Frager (talk) 20:19, 17 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:La Razón 14-03-1967.jpg[edit]

Scan from a newspaper published in Argentina in 1967. The copyright for anonymous works is 50 years after publication, thus it is in the public domain in its country of origin. However, it was not in 1996 at URAA time. Thus, it is still protected by copyright in the US. Following COM:PCP we cannot keep this newspaper scan. We can undelete it in 2063. Günther Frager (talk) 20:20, 16 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


File:La Razón 04-10-1966.jpg[edit]

Scan from a newspaper published in Argentina in 1966. The copyright for anonymous works is 50 years after publication, thus it is in the public domain in its country of origin. However, it was not in 1996 at URAA time. Thus, it is still protected by copyright in the US. Following COM:PCP we cannot keep this newspaper scan. We can undelete it in 2062. Günther Frager (talk) 20:21, 16 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Uploads by William ll[edit]

This account uploaded several images as "own work" and using false name to use in hoaxes in the pt.WP. The file File:Jules de Counani.jpg was used in a hoax about a supposed "King of Cunani, but the image actually describes en:Jules Gros (journalist), "first president" of the en:Republic of Independent Guiana. --Kacamata! Dimmi!!! 21:13, 16 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Weak keep if and only if these images can be appropriately identified and sourced. There is some historical substance to the "short-lived unrecognized state" of Counani / Cunani (per the enwiki article), but it's not clear to me whether these images are legitimately related to that or not. Omphalographer (talk) 22:26, 16 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/2023/10/16&oldid=824741744"