Commons:Deletion requests/2023/10/22

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
21 October 2023
23 October 2023
Deletion requests on 22 October 2023

October 22[edit]

Files in Category:Eiga Story (magazine)[edit]

Images from Japanese magazine Eiga Story published between 1964 and 1966. These images are now in the public domain in Japan (50 years after publication), but they were still copyrighted in 1996 at URAA time. Thus, they are still protected in the USA. Moreover, some of these images were taken from the film A Hard Day's night, still protected by copyright in the UK, its country of origin.

Günther Frager (talk) 12:43, 22 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


File:Marienkapelle Wicheling Innenraum.jpg[edit]

no freedom of panorama for interior in Germany 85.239.119.196 13:06, 22 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Baroque interior, so this request can refer only to the windows which one could perhaps consider as de minimis. --Achim55 (talk) 16:06, 22 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
IMO, the windows are definitely de minimis in this context, if those are the only elements at issue. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:12, 23 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The Photographer says, she had explicit approval for taking these images. @Ricardalovesmonuments: --Pentachlorphenol (talk) 07:31, 23 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
the Chapel was built in 1992 only! --Pentachlorphenol (talk) 07:33, 23 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Permission from whom? All the artists who created the works in question? If not, it would seem like this photo will have to be deleted. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:01, 23 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Delete The whole thing looks old, but it isn't (from 1992 as noted above). Some parts (like the altar and the crucifix) are apparently older. --Rosenzweig τ 07:54, 23 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Keep nichts Schützenswertes erkennbar. Wenn etwas dabei sein sollte, ist es Beiwerk. Alles, was Kunst ist, ist ausreichend alt. Ralf Roletschek 11:58, 23 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Ralf Roletschek: Lt. de:Wicheling sind Altar, Kruzifix und Pietà alt, diverse Heiligenfiguren sind von 1992 und das Deckengemälde sowie die Fenster wahrscheinlich auch. "Beiwerk" kann man seit dem BGH-Urteil von 2014 in Deutschland nur noch extrem restriktiv auslegen, siehe COM:Germany/de#Unwesentliches Beiwerk. Dass den Werken „nach den Umständen des Einzelfalls keine noch so geringfügige inhaltliche Beziehung zum Hauptgegenstand der Verwertung zuzubilligen ist, sondern [sie] durch [ihre] Zufälligkeit und Beliebigkeit für diesen ohne jede Bedeutung“ seien, kann man bei dieser Kapelle kaum behaupten. --Rosenzweig τ 13:35, 23 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Wenn das neu ist und nur auf alt getrimmt, ist es ein prima Beispiel für fehlende SH denn so sehen solche Sachen in Kirchen seit Jahrhunderten aaus. Ralf Roletschek 14:00, 23 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Fehlende Schöpfungshöhe? Bei einem Fresko wie File:Marienkapelle Wicheling Deckenfresko.jpg (signiert übrigens 19 P. X. M. HORNSTEINER 91)? Wenn du meinst. Ich kann mich dieser Sichtweise nicht anschließen. --Rosenzweig τ 17:19, 23 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Keep Bildbestimmend sind ja der Altar und vielleicht noch das Kruzifix, beide sind älter als 100 Jahre (siehe [1]). Die zahlreichen weiteren Gegenstände sind de minimis. Die Kirchenbänke sind solide Schreinerarbeit ohne Schöpfungshöhe. Das Deckengemälde stammt aus der Bauzeit (1992) ist aber wegen der schrägen Draufsicht kaum zu erkennen, das gleiche gilt für die Fenster. Falls dennoch auf Löschen entschieden wird, wäre ein Hinweis an die Fotografin sinnvoll, ob man durch 'Zuschneiden' eine für Behalten akzeptable Version erzeugen könnte. --Rufus46 (talk) 18:20, 25 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ich habe – so bedauerlich das auch sein mag – ernsthafte Zweifel, ob Fenster und Deckengemälde im Kontext der Rechtsprechung des Bundesgerichtshofs (vgl. hierzu Unwesentliches Beiwerk) als De minimis anzusehen sind. Auch wenn beides nicht in Frontalansicht dargestellt ist, so ist beides doch schon recht stil-/stimmungsbildend für die Motivsituation. Und der Argumentation, dass das Deckengemälde wegen der schrägen Draufsicht kaum zu erkennen sei, finde ich nicht nachvollziehbar. Angesichts der hohen Auflösung von 16.320 × 12.240 Pixeln finde ich es im Gegenteil sogar überaus gut zu erkennen. DCB (talk) 18:55, 25 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ich halte es für notwendig, den Löschantrag auf die anderen Bilder des Innenbereichs der Kapelle auszuweiten.
File:Marienkapelle Wicheling Altar-Detail.jpg
File:Marienkapelle Wicheling Altar.jpg
File:Marienkapelle Wicheling Deckenfresko.jpg
File:Marienkapelle Wicheling Eingangsseite.jpg
File:Marienkapelle Wicheling Figurengruppe linke Seite.jpg
File:Marienkapelle Wicheling Innenraum.jpg
File:Marienkapelle Wicheling Kruzifix.jpg
da nicht exakt klar ist, welche Teile jetzt alt und gemeinfrei sind und was neu und entsprechend geschützt ist, würde ich die Löschung befürworten. --Pentachlorphenol (talk) 06:44, 30 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:New Ulaanbaatar International Airport.jpg[edit]

Pixabay license of CC-Zero is valid, but there's no freedom of panorama allowed by Mongolian law. As this is a new structure and its presence is focal rather than incidental, it cannot be freely licensed without permission from the architect/designer. Bobamnertiopsis (talk) 13:13, 22 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Files found with Special:Search/zealthy[edit]

These anatomy drawings are derivative works of a non-free image. Please see https://www.carlsonstockart.com/photo/reproductive-system-female-illustration/.

Genericusername57 (talk) 14:00, 22 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:관암사 관음전 내부.jpg[edit]

The name of the person who donated the candles is located at the bottom of the two candles on the left. Therefore, I want to delete this file because even the name is personal information.(Korean Translation : 왼쪽 2개의 양초 아랫부분에 초를 보시한 사람의 이름이 보입니다. 이름이라도 개인정보이므로 사진을 삭제하고 싶습니다.) HwangHuang (talk) 14:02, 22 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:Leon Lico Amar[edit]

We don't know when the Austrian illustrator Leon Lico Amar died (I couldn't find a death year either), so we cannot know if these Austrian / German drawings are really in the PD as claimed or not. Since he was born in 1887, he easily could have lived beyond 1948, which would mean these files are still protected by copyright. The files therefore should be deleted per the precautionary principle.

Rosenzweig τ 19:57, 1 January 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Very nice. Unfortunately it doesn't have a death year as well. --Rosenzweig τ 20:39, 3 January 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Today the article had been expanded, now we know the last reference of Leon L. Amar in August 1929. Please try yourself. Best regards, --Bernd Schwabe in Hannover (talk) 22:11, 4 January 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dear friends.

  1. Amar is not known as a victim of the Holocaust [2]
  2. We have to initiate an article about BEREK, an enterprise of the city of Berlin. Amar worked for it as artistic advisor when he suddenly seemed to be disappeared in August 1929 just a few weeks before the beginning of the Great Depression - and the beginning of the NAZI terror. Unfortunately in the moment the job to write BEREK is too big for me alone. Who likes to do so, or to help at least?

Your'e welcome. Bernd Schwabe in Hannover (talk) 09:11, 7 January 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Kept, considering circumstances, I take 1929/30 as death year. This puts his works into public domain in Germany, but they were not in PD on URAA date and their copyright was restored in 1996 in USA. 95 years from creation is needed. Taivo (talk) 17:09, 4 June 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Files in Category:Leon Lico Amar[edit]

A previous deletion request for works by Leon Lico Amar was decided as keep because the admin thought he had died in 1929/30. It has since been established that Amar did not die then, but emigrated from Germany to Argentina, where he was still listed as a graphic artist working in Buenos Aires in 1964. For details, see Wikidata Leon Lico Amar and de:Diskussion:Leon Amar. He would have been 77 years old in 1964, so he could have died a few years later, or he could have died at the age of 95 like his younger (by 11 months) sister who died in 1983.

Since he was alive in 1964, his works are still protected in Austria and Germany (where he worked before he emigrated to Argentina). Any works from his time in Argentina could be already in the public domain there as works of applied art, which are protected for 25 years from creation per COM:Argentina. All the works we have from him are from Austria and Germany though., and those are still protected in those countries as well as the US, so the files should be deleted. Since we still don't know when Amar actually died, they should only be restored after 120 years with {{PD-old-assumed}}, but not before 2035.

Rosenzweig τ 14:53, 22 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes. Why wouldn't he have? It's even signed. --Rosenzweig τ 21:05, 22 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Пам'ятник поету, письменнику, художнику Тарасові Григоровичу Шевченку 1992 село Глібів.jpg[edit]

There is no freedom of panorama in Ukraine and the photos violate sculptors and architects copyright. Created after 1992. Derivatives of work. No Permission from the sculptor Б. Рудий. Микола Василечко (talk) 15:14, 22 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


File:5. Гусятин (Пам'ятник ватажку козацького повстання Наливайку Северину.jpg[edit]

There is no freedom of panorama in Ukraine and the photos violate sculptors and architects copyright. Created after 1992. Derivatives of work. No Permission from the sculptor К. Сікорський. Микола Василечко (talk) 15:18, 22 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


File:Гусятин Пам'ятник Шевченку.jpg[edit]

There is no freedom of panorama in Ukraine and the photos violate sculptors and architects copyright. Created 1993. Derivatives of work. No Permission from the sculptor М. Обезюк. Микола Василечко (talk) 15:20, 22 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


File:LAffaireLouisTrio.jpg[edit]

Cette photographie de Marcos Quinones (https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:LAffaireLouisTrio.jpg?uselang=fr) conservée à la Bibliothèque municipale de Lyon, n'a jamais été en "CC-BY-3.0", mais en "CC BY-NC-ND 2.0" qui en interdit toute modification ainsi que l'usage commercial, comme la plupart des photographies contemporaines conservées et mises en ligne sur le site institutionnel "Photographes en Rhône-Alpes". Ceci est vérifiable sur la page d'origine : https://numelyo.bm-lyon.fr/BML:BML_01ICO001014d1da825a5a3b

La même remarque est également applicable à la déclinaison recadrée de cette photographie (https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Hubert_Mounier.jpg?uselang=fr) qui ignore volontairement les droits d'auteur d'origine. Merci de corriger ces erreurs. Bien cordialement, 185.235.8.193 15:32, 22 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:TAG Andy Warhol Soup Can 02.jpg[edit]

The picture of Warhol and the text on the label would have their own copyright. It is not clear whether the VRT permission covers both the overall photograph of four cans AND the can's 2012 label. Glrx (talk) 18:29, 22 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Delete unless we have permission from the photographer of Warhol, the photographer of the Can, and Campbell's Soup. See also COM:VPC#Additional images at w:Campbell's Soup Cans.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 18:50, 22 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have no objection to evolving the copyright situation on this image. Cheers. Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:43, 24 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Probably a copyvio, but what does the VRT ticket say? Nosferattus (talk) 22:18, 1 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Works by Petah Coyne[edit]

Non-free content, derivative works, no FoP. Images contain copyrighted sculpture and installation by a living artist (Petah Coyne), photographed in the United States (no FoP) --19h00s (talk) 18:41, 22 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Keep Original nominator here, didn't notice the artist themself uploaded these images (seemingly?). Not sure how they should be treated, I'm assuming the uploader is in fact the artist or artist's studio. --19h00s (talk) 18:44, 22 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
 Delete Unless we receive a COM:VRT from the photographers. The user Petahcoynestudio might be Petah Coyne author of the artworks, but she is likely not the author of the images. The metadata of File:PCA Untitled -1421 Ha Jin 300dpi.jpg and File:PCA Having Gone I Will Return 2018 Large Gallery Installation N 300dpi.jpg, for example, points to Christopher Burke. Günther Frager (talk) 21:08, 22 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Files found with Special:Search/"female anatomy"[edit]

All of the nominated files are derivative works of File:Female_anatomy.png, which was deleted in 2010 as a copyvio. See also this 2015 discussion. I believe the original source for the diagram is this textbook.

Genericusername57 (talk) 18:46, 22 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Question: is vectorization of these images by User:Tsaitgaist not enough to count the SVG variants of these images as a separate works? How does copyright apply to the layout of organs in the human body? —⁠andrybak (talk) 21:40, 25 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The schemas are so generic that saying that this is copyvio is a big assumption. Someone has redrawn a very generic image of human organs. Theklan (talk) 09:52, 27 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
PNG files derived from Tsaitgaist's SVG works should also be kept. For example, File:Locatio vaginae femininae (lingua Ukraina).png is derived from File:Female anatomy with g-spot-en.svg. —⁠andrybak (talk) 11:40, 29 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


 Keep. The File:Male and female anatomy.svg is the basis for all these versions of his illustration with labels in many languages. It is the unlabelled own drawing originally uploaded by Tsaitgaist. It is an SVG. So it was not copied or scanned from the book, but created as a new vector graphic with (for example) Adobe Illustrator or Inkscape. That is why the colour areas and the lines are designed differently. The ugly dot structure on the old picture in the book does not correspond to today's drawing style for anatomical drawings. Tsaitgaist used a completely different style. The fact that the anatomical proportions correspond is because the same body parts are depicted. This cannot be avoided. Tsaitgaist used the illustrations in the book as inspiration, but his picture in no way infringes the copyright of the artists who created the dotted illustrations in the book at that time. It is enough to delete the copies or scans from the book with the ugly dotted pictures. Everything based on Tsaitgaist's SVG has nothing to do with it and must be kept to prevent serious damage to the project, for which there would be no legal justification. Sciencia58 (talk) 10:45, 31 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Keep. There are definite differences between the alleged source and the base for these images: most obviously, the way in which the different tissues have been rendered is totally different. As others have noted, most of the things that make the "source" image distinctive are themselves not over the threshold of originality for copyright: the pose is a standard anatomical one, and the shapes and position of the various bones and organs are simply a matter of bare facts. We are left with things like the folds in the skin: here, again, we can see very clearly that our artist has tried to do the same job rather than copying anything, and has indeed made their own, different, choices in doing so. I don't see any copyvio here. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 22:43, 3 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I am working on the reworked versions of both, male and female anatomy. I will soon upload them as new version of the file with the blank image first. They will be so different from the images in the book, that we can replace all the other versions with them too. Please don't delete anything, until I have replaced the present images in the artikels where they are in use. Otherwise I can't find anymore where they belong. Please have patience, I will start uploading and inserting probably next weekend. Sciencia58 (talk) 20:20, 7 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Here is the new unlabelled version of both illustrations. Please look at them carefully and you will realise that the similarities between the old pictures of Tsaitgaist and the drawing in the book no longer exist. I have also corrected the errors in the book drawings that were taken from Tsaitgaist. The pubic bone is a bone and must have the same colour as the spine. In the book it is blue like the abdominal cavity, that was a mistake by the graphic artist who did the book drawing.
The new illustration shows the homologous organs in the same colour, which is important so that they can be compared.
I will upload a new version without the text underneath. Anatomie of male and female human genitalia - blanc.png
Then come the pictures with labelling in the many different languages. Sciencia58 (talk) 09:19, 8 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Next I will take care of replacing the pictures of the male organs from the book with my new drawings, for which there is a deletion request on another page here. I'll take care of Tsaitgaist's pictures here of the female and there the male organs after that. To replace the pictures from the book soon is more important. Sciencia58 (talk) 20:16, 10 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This image] is from the book too. It can be replaced with File:التشريح السفلي للأنثى.png now. Sciencia58 (talk) 07:09, 22 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The copyvio from the book is here too: File:Anus querschnitt.jpg. Magnus Manske's upload bot has accepted it. This shows what an upload bot is worth. It creates problems that would not exist if one person was responsible for each individual upload. Sciencia58 (talk) 07:14, 22 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Lali cartel atención.jpg[edit]

There is no FoP for 2D artworks in Argentina. Günther Frager (talk) 18:58, 22 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Files found with Special:Search/"male anatomy" insource:/male anatomy/i -filemime:pdf[edit]

All of these files are derivative works of File:Male_anatomy.png, which I believe is taken from this copyrighted textbook.

I replaced lousy picture with File:Male and female analogous pelvic organs ru -1.png Sciencia58 (talk) 20:07, 15 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Genericusername57 (talk) 19:05, 22 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Apart from the copyright problem, I think it's good to delete these images for another reason, because on the images of the female genitourinary tract, the urinary bladder is red inside, as if it were filled with blood. In the male genitourinary tract, the bladder contents are brown, a symptom of disease. It's a pity about the pictures derived from it with a yellow bladder content, but I can make new ones that are completely my own pictures. Could you leave some time so that I can make pictures with which the ones to be deleted can then be directly replaced. Many of the ones suggested here for deletion are in use. The easiest thing would be to upload the new images with the same image name as a new version of the file. Then the authors of the articles in many countries would not have to search for replacements for the deleted ones. Can you please delete the older versions after uploading the new versions as the same file? Sciencia58 (talk) 18:38, 23 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
However, I do not find that the images proposed for deletion here constitute copyright infringement, because they are new drawings that are sufficiently different from the images in the book. Sciencia58 (talk) 18:31, 23 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As our illustrations are quite different from those in the book, there is no hurry to delete anything. They have been in use for so many years now. I can improve them and remove similarities with the originals. Sciencia58 (talk) 18:44, 23 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Example: Original in the book, commons file copied or scanned from the original only reducing some colors, this is a copyright infringement, therefore this one file is to be deleted.  Delete Sciencia58 (talk) 06:11, 31 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
But: The big new drawing with own lines and own colour areas is an own picture. Ningyou has chosen the colours from the old commons file, that are not in the book. So this very good new image can be kept, the urinary bladder content and the urethra can be changed into yellow, so that it doesn't resemble to the large bowel any more. The colour of the connective tissue (yellow now) can be changed into a more neutral colour.  Keep Sciencia58 (talk) 09:59, 24 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
For the same reasons vectorized images in SVG format and their derivatives should be kept. See also similar discussion in Commons:Deletion requests/Files found with "female anatomy". —⁠andrybak (talk) 11:37, 29 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
 Comment: Homologous organs: File:Becken- und Genitalorgane des Menschen.png. In this pair of pictures I have made sure that the same organs and also the male and female organs that are homologous, are shown in the same colour, i.e. the penile erectile tissue in the same colour as the erectile tissue of the clitoris. This is important for understanding the embryonic development of these organs and their function. Corresponding colours should also always be used for individual images of the female or male urogenital tract in order to make the homology recognisable. Sciencia58 (talk) 10:09, 24 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Question Does anyone have an Archive.org account? The copyright page indicates there is a credits page later in the book which I cannot access. Worth seeing if, by some chance, the image artist is the same person who owned that website. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 14:29, 28 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Keep. The File:Male and female anatomy.svg is the basis for all these versions of his illustration with labels in many languages. It is the unlabelled own drawing originally uploaded by Tsaitgaist. It is an SVG. So it was not copied or scanned from the book, but created as a new vector graphic with (for example) Adobe Illustrator or Inkscape. That is why the colour areas and the lines are designed differently. The ugly dot structure on the old picture in the book does not correspond to today's drawing style for anatomical drawings. Tsaitgaist used a completely different style. The fact that the anatomical proportions correspond is because the same body parts are depicted. This cannot be avoided. Tsaitgaist used the illustrations in the book as inspiration, but his picture in no way infringes the copyright of the artists who created the dotted illustrations in the book at that time. It is enough to delete the copies or scans from the book with the ugly dotted pictures. Everything based on Tsaitgaist's SVG has nothing to do with it and must be kept to prevent serious damage to the project, for which there would be no legal justification. Sciencia58 (talk) 10:45, 31 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The resemblance is close enough that this probably still qualifies as a derivative work. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 13:45, 31 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Keep. With the same arguments from Sciencia58. -- Muck (talk) 13:28, 31 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Keep. See last comment by Sciencia58 --Uwe Gille (talk) 08:14, 1 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Comment: As I have already announced, I will make modified versions of the blank illustrations and then also provide these versions with the inscriptions in the different languages and fonts.

I can only replace all the illustrations with new versions if the previous ones are still in use. For each illustration, you can look up where it is used. That is what matters. But if the existing illustrations were deleted, I would no longer be able to find the places where they belong and I would no longer be able to insert the new versions there. That would be a disaster. I will soon upload the new blank images that served as the basis for all the others. It will take a few days to finish them. Then you can compare my versions with the ones in the book and you won't see anything in common anymore. Afterwards I will make the labelled ones. Just don't delete anything beforehand, otherwise it will no longer be possible for me to insert the new ones directly as replacements in the right places in the Wikipedia articles worldwide.

I can upload the changed images with the same filename as a new version, then they will be replaced automatically in the articles. For this, all images now in use must be kept for the time being, including those with the ugly dots. I can replace them with new pictures with a similar filename. But only if I see them in the articles. I can't read these many languages. I have to see where the pictures are. I will replace the dotted ones first, then you can delete the dotted ones, please only after I have replaced them in the articles. Sciencia58 (talk) 22:35, 1 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Here is the new unlabelled version of both illustrations. Please look at them carefully and you will realise that the similarities between the old pictures of Tsaitgaist and the drawing in the book no longer exist. I have also corrected the errors in the book drawings that were taken from Tsaitgaist. The pubic bone is a bone and must have the same colour as the spine. In the book it is blue like the abdominal cavity, that was a mistake by the graphic artist who did the book drawing.
The new illustration shows the homologous organs in the same colour, which is important so that they can be compared.
I will upload a new version without the text underneath. Anatomie of male and female human genitalia - blanc.png
Then come the pictures with labelling in the many different languages. Sciencia58 (talk) 09:20, 8 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
 Keep Als Arzt schätze ich die pädagogisch hilfreichen schematischen Abbildungen. Wie schon beschrieben, sind die abgebildeten Körperteile bei allen Menschen gleich, auch in meinem eigenen Anatomieatlas (Sobotta) gibt es zwei extrem ähnliche Abbildungen - dass sich also zwei Bilder derselben Perspektive ähneln, ist verständlich. Aber die Neuerschaffung der Schemen als SVG bedeutet neues geistiges Eigentum, ein neues Copyright oder Copyleft.
Means: Being a physician, I appreciate the educationally helpful schematic illustrations. As already described, the body parts shown are the same for all people, and in my own anatomy atlas (Sobotta) there are two extremely similar illustrations - so it's understandable that two images of the same perspective are similar. But recreating the schemes as SVG means new intellectual property, a new copyright or copyleft. ThomasPusch (talk) 19:33, 10 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Now I have also replaced all the pictures of the male pelvic organs from the book that I could. A few articles have a page protection. I don't do anything about those. The Romanian Wikipedia wanted to keep the old picture from the book and has reverted. I have informed them on the discussion pages that a deletion is imminent. They now have the new one available and can use it again later.
I would like to say the following about the SVG: I cannot see any copyright infringement. But they do contain errors. The problem with SVG is that not everyone has learnt to program SVG. Therefore, the experts who recognise the errors have no way of improving an SVG. A urinary bladder filled with blood makes just as bad an impression as a urinary bladder filled with a mixture of urine and faeces in brown. The penis on the SVG of the male organs is larger than on the template in the book. The user Tsaitgaist failed to compare it with the size of the vagina. Even in a flaccid, non-erect state, it would never fit into the vagina in the other picture, even if the woman were sexually aroused and the vagina became longer and wider as a result. If this penis were pushed in by force, it would tear the vagina at the fornix vaginae and the woman would bleed to death. A cult around the male penis is out of place here, especially because the female penis (clitoris) on the SVG was drawn incorrectly. The glans and shaft are NOT formed from the crura. This part is homologous to the male corpus cavernosum urethrae and corpus cavernosum glandis. The paraurethral gland is also drawn incorrectly. However, this is no reason to delete the images, but someone who can edit SVG would please correct them. Sciencia58 (talk) 08:17, 11 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Template for corrections of both SVG: File:Male anatomy 1.png and File:Female reproductive system lateral 1.png. Sciencia58 (talk) 08:07, 11 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It makes no sense to depict men and women as even more different than they are.
Equal and homologous organs must have the same colour. Otherwise, it appears as if men and women are different species in terms of their sexual organs and the rifts between the sexes become even deeper than they already are due to misunderstandings about the clitoris. My drawings are not the best in terms of graphics, but they are factually correct and that must take precedence. Anyone who can make better ones is welcome to do so. Sciencia58 (talk) 11:32, 11 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Files found with Special:Search/insource:"vimeo.com/topshotd"[edit]

Screenshots from videos from Vimo user Topshot a company that sells services (films using drones). The videos have a CC-BY license in Vimeo, but it is unlikely Topshot holds the copyright of them as they are clearly work for hire. These videos are ads from Samsund and BIMA Y LOLA (women's clothing comany). The Vimeo user also has other videos with bogus CC-BY license that includes Apple, BMW, Porsche, McDonals, Renault, Bugatti, Lexus, etc.

Günther Frager (talk) 20:50, 22 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:600px Blu en red con stella e luna gialle.png[edit]

Fantasy logo with no status whatsever. Just a work of artwork outside the scope of Wikipedia and Commons. The Banner (talk) 21:45, 18 July 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Kept: in use. P 1 9 9  ✉ 18:04, 5 September 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:600px Blu en red con stella e luna gialle.png[edit]

Derivative work of Paris Saint-Germain logo that is copyrighted and above French threshold of originality, see Commons:Deletion requests/File:PSG FC logo.jpg. Günther Frager (talk) 21:37, 22 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  •  Comment Looks pretty simple to me, and in use all over the place. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:06, 23 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/2023/10/22&oldid=824422982"