Commons:Deletion requests/2023/10/23
October 23[edit]
File:Bandeira Itaituba.jpg[edit]
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Bandeira_Itaituba.jpg Jonilson Costa de Oliveira (talk) 00:34, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
- Anos atrás eu mesmo publiquei a imagem, porém estava invertida. Já publiquei ela corretamente, gostaria que essa fosse deletada. Jonilson Costa de Oliveira (talk) 00:36, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Bandeira_Itaituba.jpg Jonilson Costa de Oliveira (talk) 00:34, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
File:Bandeira Itaituba.svg[edit]
https://pt.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ficheiro:Bandeira_Itaituba.svg Jonilson Costa de Oliveira (talk) 00:38, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
- A imagem da Bandeira não está correta, já atualizei a correta na página itaituba. Peço que deletem essa Jonilson Costa de Oliveira (talk) 00:41, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
Files in Category:Gustave Zanter[edit]
Unfortunately there's no FOP in Luxembourg and the artist of these windows, Gustave Zanter, died in 2001. So these images are copyrighted until at least 2072.
- File:Echternach - Abbey of Echternach 698 founded by St Willibrord - Romanesque St. Willibrord Basilika rebuilt in Neo-romanesque style after the Battle of the Bulge 1945 - Interior 19.jpg
- File:FenMech1.JPG
- File:Gustave Zanter - Missionstätigkeit bei den Friesen - 1952.jpg
- File:Luxembourg, Église Saint-Joseph Cessange (3).JPG
- File:Luxembourg-Wasserbillig-Church-stained glass window-02ASD.jpg
- File:Luxembourg-Wasserbillig-Church-stained glass window-03ASD.jpg
- File:Luxembourg-Wasserbillig-Church-stained glass window-04ASD.jpg
- File:Zanter Fenster Ëlwen.jpg
Adamant1 (talk) 03:12, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
- Seeing File:Luxembourg-Wasserbillig-Church-stained glass window-03ASD.jpg in the list, I wonder, how were these photos selected? Was Commons:De minimis applied? Nemo 17:42, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
Files in Category:Pharmacie des Maures[edit]
Unfortunately there's no FOP in Luxembourg and the artist of these murals, Léon Nosbusch, died in 1979. So these images are copyrighted until at least 2050.
- File:Luxembourg City pharmacie des Maures 01.jpg
- File:Mourenapdikt Stad Lëtzebuerg Entréesportal.jpg
- File:Negerapdikt.JPG
Adamant1 (talk) 03:16, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
Files in Category:Church windows Église Saint-Nicolas (Hosingen)[edit]
Unfortunately there's no FOP in Luxembourg and the artist of these windows, Gustave Zanter, died in 2001. So these images are copyrighted until at least 2072.
- File:Housen, Augustinus an Ambrosius-Fënster.jpg
- File:Housen, Hubertus-Fënster.jpg
- File:Housen, Jousefs-Fënster.jpg
- File:Housen, Katharina- Bäerbel- a Margareta-Fënster.jpg
- File:Housen, Lambertus a Willibrordus-Fënster.jpg
- File:Housen, Regina Mundi-Fënster.jpg
Adamant1 (talk) 03:22, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
Files in Category:Léon Nosbusch[edit]
Unfortunately there's no FOP in Luxembourg and the artist of these murals, Léon Nosbusch, died in 1979. So these images are copyrighted until at least 2050.
- File:Bernard Kautebaach.JPG
- File:Centenaire du chemin de fer Luxembourgois coin.JPG
- File:L Nosbusch LHC.JPG
- File:Memorial Lucien Salentiny Ettelbruck 01.jpg
- File:Memorial Lucien Salentiny Ettelbruck 02.jpg
Adamant1 (talk) 03:29, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
Files in Category:Athens Olympic Sports Complex[edit]
Unfortunately there's FOP in Greece and the architect of this sports complex, Santiago Calatrava, seems to still be alive. So these images are copyrighted until an as yet undetermined date.
- File:After the rain - The Agora, Olympic Park, Athens.jpg
- File:Athens Olympic complex.JPG
- File:Clon ateniense de la CAC - panoramio.jpg
- File:OAKA - panoramio.jpg
- File:OAKA Arcs - panoramio.jpg
- File:OAKA arcs - panoramio.jpg
- File:OAKA-CD-04.jpg
- File:Olympic Athletic Center of Athens Plaza and Arch.jpg
- File:Olympic Stoa Athens.JPG
- File:Olympic Stoa.JPG
- File:ΟΑΚΑ.jpg
Adamant1 (talk) 03:42, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
- Seeing how File:OAKA-CD-04.jpg was included in the list, how were these photos selected? Was Commons:De minimis applied? Nemo 17:41, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
Files in Category:Auditorio de Tenerife[edit]
According to Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Spain Spanish FOP law only allows for works that are "permanently located in parks or on streets, squares or other public thoroughfares." Whereas this auditorium clearly isn't situated in or on a public throughfare. So these images are copyrighted until an undetermined date since the artist, Santiago Calatrava, seems to still be alive.
- File:+ Blick auf Sata Cruz. 01.jpg
- File:+ Blick auf Sata Cruz. 02.jpg
- File:+ Blick auf Sata Cruz. 07.jpg
- File:+ Blick auf Sata Cruz. 08.jpg
- File:+ Blick auf Sata Cruz. 16.jpg
- File:+ Blick auf Sata Cruz. 17.jpg
- File:+ Blick auf Sata Cruz. 18.jpg
- File:+ Blick auf Sata Cruz. 19.jpg
- File:+ Blick auf Sata Cruz. 20.jpg
- File:Amura de babor, Auditorio de Tenerife, España, 2015.JPG
- File:Architecture from outer space (371266934).jpg
- File:At Palmetum de Santa Cruz de Tenerife 2022 028.jpg
- File:At Palmetum de Santa Cruz de Tenerife 2022 030.jpg
- File:At Santa Cruz de Tenerife 2019 018.jpg
- File:At Tenerife 2019 137.jpg
- File:At Tenerife 2019 484.jpg
- File:At Tenerife 2019 485.jpg
- File:At Tenerife 2019 492.jpg
- File:At Tenerife 2019 494.jpg
- File:At Tenerife 2019 495.jpg
- File:At Tenerife 2019 496.jpg
- File:At Tenerife 2019 497.jpg
- File:At Tenerife 2019 498.jpg
- File:At Tenerife 2019 517.jpg
- File:At Tenerife 2020 063.jpg
- File:At Tenerife 2020 823.jpg
- File:At Tenerife 2020 868.jpg
- File:At Tenerife 2020 873.jpg
- File:At Tenerife 2020 875.jpg
- File:At Tenerife 2020 877.jpg
- File:At Tenerife 2020 882.jpg
- File:At Tenerife 2020 883.jpg
- File:Auditorio - panoramio.jpg
- File:Auditorio de Santa Cruz de TFE.jpg
- File:Auditorio de Tenerife (sea side).JPG
- File:Auditorio de Tenerife 001.JPG
- File:Auditorio de Tenerife 002.JPG
- File:Auditorio de Tenerife 012.JPG
- File:Auditorio de Tenerife 013.JPG
- File:Auditorio de Tenerife 014.JPG
- File:Auditorio de Tenerife 015.JPG
- File:Auditorio de Tenerife 03988.JPG
- File:Auditorio de Tenerife 1.JPG
- File:Auditorio de Tenerife 2.JPG
- File:Auditorio de Tenerife 2015.jpg
- File:Auditorio de Tenerife Adán Martín, Tenerife, Spain (PPL1-Corrected) julesvernex2.jpg
- File:Auditorio de Tenerife Adán Martín, Tenerife, Spain (PPL2-Enhanced) julesvernex2.jpg
- File:Auditorio de Tenerife Adán Martín, Tenerife, Spain (PPL3-Altered) julesvernex2.jpg
- File:Auditorio de Tenerife Blaue Stunde.jpg
- File:Auditorio de Tenerife desde Palmetum.jpg
- File:Auditorio de Tenerife Detail.jpg
- File:Auditorio de Tenerife Detail2.jpg
- File:Auditorio de Tenerife Front.jpg
- File:Auditorio de Tenerife lado izquierdo.jpg
- File:Auditorio de Tenerife Pano Detail Treppe.jpg
- File:Auditorio de Tenerife Pano edit.jpg
- File:Auditorio de Tenerife Pano.jpg
- File:Auditorio de Tenerife Rueckseite.jpg
- File:Auditorio de Tenerife Seitlich.jpg
- File:Auditorio de Tenerife Sonnenuntergang.jpg
- File:Auditorio de Tenerife Vorderseite.jpg
- File:Auditorio de Tenerife, Canarias, España, 2015.JPG
- File:Auditorio de Tenerife, de frente, España, 2015.JPG
- File:Auditorio de Tenerife, de perfil, España, 2015.JPG
- File:Auditorio de Tenerife, Santa Cruz de Tenerife, España, 2012-12-15, DD 01.jpg
- File:Auditorio de Tenerife, Santa Cruz de Tenerife, España, 2012-12-15, DD 02.jpg
- File:Auditorio de Tenerife, Santa Cruz de Tenerife, España, 2012-12-15, DD 03.jpg
- File:Auditorio de Tenerife, Santa Cruz de Tenerife, España, 2012-12-15, DD 04.jpg
- File:Auditorio de Tenerife, Santa Cruz de Tenerife, España, 2012-12-15, DD 05.jpg
- File:Auditorio de Tenerife, Santa Cruz de Tenerife, España, 2012-12-15, DD 06.jpg
- File:Auditorio de Tenerife, Santa Cruz de Tenerife, España, 2012-12-15, DD 07.jpg
- File:Auditorio de Tenerife, Santa Cruz de Tenerife, España, 2012-12-15, DD 08.jpg
- File:Auditorio de Tenerife, Santa Cruz de Tenerife, España, 2012-12-15, DD 09.jpg
- File:Auditorio de Tenerife, Santa Cruz de Tenerife, España, 2012-12-15, DD 10.jpg
- File:Auditorio de Tenerife, Santa Cruz de Tenerife, España, 2012-12-15, DD 11.jpg
- File:Auditorio de Tenerife, Santa Cruz de Tenerife, España, 2012-12-15, DD 12.jpg
- File:Auditorio de Tenerife.jpg
- File:Auditorio Nord 01.jpg
- File:Auditorio Ost 01.jpg
- File:Auditorio Süd 01.jpg
- File:Auditorio Süd 02.jpg
- File:Auditorio tenerife - panoramio.jpg
- File:Auditorio Tenerife.jpg
- File:Auditorio tenerife1.jpg
- File:Auditorio West 01.jpg
- File:Auditorio West 02.jpg
- File:Auditorio West 03.jpg
- File:Auditorio with backlight (370191311).jpg
- File:Auditorio-tenerife.jpg
- File:Auditoriotenerife.jpg
- File:Barcelona - panoramio (5).jpg
- File:Barcelona - panoramio (7).jpg
- File:Canaries Tenerife Santa Cruz Auditorio - panoramio (1).jpg
- File:Canaries Tenerife Santa Cruz Auditorio - panoramio (2).jpg
- File:Canaries Tenerife Santa Cruz Auditorio - panoramio (3).jpg
- File:Canaries Tenerife Santa Cruz Auditorio - panoramio.jpg
- File:Canaries Tenerife Santa Cruz Auditorio Castillo San Juan 02092015 - panoramio (1).jpg
- File:Canaries Tenerife Santa Cruz Auditorio Castillo San Juan 02092015 - panoramio.jpg
- File:Canaries Tenerife Santa Cruz Auditorio Parque Maritimo - panoramio.jpg
- File:Colección Parque Marítimo César Manrique by elduendesuarez 04.JPG
- File:ES-stacruz-auditorium.jpg
- File:Kivimaalaus1.jpg
- File:Oidos en Santa Cruz de Tenerife.JPG
- File:ORGANO TENERIFE B.jpg
- File:Palmetum of Santa Cruz de Tenerife 2019 044.jpg
- File:Palmetum of Santa Cruz de Tenerife 2019 045.jpg
- File:Palmetum of Santa Cruz de Tenerife 2019 058.jpg
- File:Palmetum of Santa Cruz de Tenerife 2019 060.jpg
- File:Palmetum of Santa Cruz de Tenerife 2019 090.jpg
- File:Palmetum of Santa Cruz de Tenerife 2019 091.jpg
- File:Palmetum of Santa Cruz de Tenerife 2019 095.jpg
- File:Palmetum of Santa Cruz de Tenerife 2019 096.jpg
- File:Palmetum of Santa Cruz de Tenerife 2019 099.jpg
- File:Parque Marítimo 01.jpg
- File:Parque Marítimo 03.jpg
- File:Photo montage of the Auditorio de Tenerife Adán Martín, Tenerife, Spain (PPL3-Altered) julesvernex2.jpg
- File:Puzzle Tenerife.jpg
- File:Santa Cruz Auditorio mit Baum fcm.jpg
- File:Santa Cruz de Tenerife - panoramio - Voytazz86.jpg
- File:SANTA CRUZ DE TENERIFE - panoramio.jpg
- File:Santa Cruz de Tenerife 2021 048.jpg
- File:Santa Cruz de Tenerife auditorio.jpg
- File:Santa Cruz de Tenerife, Spain - panoramio (118).jpg
- File:Santa Cruz de Tenerife, Spain - panoramio (122).jpg
- File:Santa Cruz de Tenerife, Spain - panoramio (129).jpg
- File:Santa Cruz de Tenerife, Spain - panoramio (132).jpg
- File:Santa Cruz de Tenerife, Spain - panoramio (137).jpg
- File:Santa Cruz de Tenerife, Spain - panoramio (24).jpg
- File:SANTA CRUZ DE TENERIFE-ESPAÑA - panoramio.jpg
- File:Santa Cruz, Auditorio de Tenerife (10).jpg
- File:Santa Cruz, Auditorio de Tenerife (11).jpg
- File:Santa Cruz, Auditorio de Tenerife (2).jpg
- File:Santa Cruz, Auditorio de Tenerife (3).jpg
- File:Santa Cruz, Auditorio de Tenerife (4).jpg
- File:Santa Cruz, Auditorio de Tenerife (5).jpg
- File:Santa Cruz, Auditorio de Tenerife (6).jpg
- File:Santa Cruz, Auditorio de Tenerife (7).jpg
- File:Santa Cruz, Auditorio de Tenerife (8).jpg
- File:Santa Cruz, Auditorio de Tenerife (9).jpg
- File:Santa Cruz, Tenerife, Spain (8112756911).jpg
- File:SP-teneriffa-santacruz-auditorium-1.jpg
- File:Tenerife - panoramio (12).jpg
- File:Tenerife 28 (6700484433).jpg
- File:Tenerife 29 (6700487217).jpg
- File:Tenerife 31 (6700498821).jpg
- File:Tenerife 32 (6700503105).jpg
- File:Tenerife 33 (6700507653).jpg
- File:Tenerife 38 (6700539273).jpg
- File:Tenerife 39 (6700545891).jpg
- File:Tenerife Auditorio Santa Cruz.JPG
- File:Tenerife-SantaCruz-Opera1.062.jpg
- File:Tenerife-SantaCruz-Opera2.jpg
- File:Tenerife-SantaCruz-Opera3.jpg
- File:Teneriffa February 2012 - panoramio (61).jpg
- File:Teneriffa February 2012 - panoramio (62).jpg
- File:Teneriffa February 2012 - panoramio (63).jpg
- File:Teneriffe, Auditorium Adán Martín.jpg
- File:The Auditorio de Tenerife.jpg
Adamant1 (talk) 03:57, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
- Comment It's on the Avenue of the Constitution, according to w:Auditorio de Tenerife. That's probably a thoroughfare, but I think your point is that architecture is treated differently under Spanish law than sculptures and so forth, isn't it? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:55, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
- It's adjacent to the road next to the ocean. Although set back some, but all buildings are adjacent to a road to some degree and I don't thank that's what the wording of the law means by "in or on" either. Otherwise there'd zero point in even having the distinction. Like would the building of a private company in a business park qualify for FOP just because it's located near a public thoroughfare? No. That's not what the law says, or at least how the guideline is worded. What I assume it means by "in or on" is say a statue located on a traffic island. Or maybe even a museum in a public park that sees constant through traffic do the location. But I don't think any building on private property (or even public if it doesn't have constant through traffic) near, by, or adjacent to a road qualifies for FOP in Spain. --Adamant1 (talk) 06:18, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
KeepAdamant1, the Auditorio de Tenerife falls under the purview of Spanish FOP not because it is next to a public thoroughfare, but because it is on one. A thoroughfare is a place that has been dedicated for use by the public, whether for vehicular (e.g., a road) or pedestrian (e.g., a park or a square) use. Anyone can walk freely around the Auditorio at any time, as I have done to take some of the images listed above. The satellite view illustrates this well, as it shows that the Auditorio is located in the same complex as the Castle of St John the Baptist, a public beach, and the Palmetum of Santa Cruz de Tenerife --Julesvernex2 (talk) 07:30, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
- I'm going to have to disagree. If you look Google Street view the left of the property is fenced off, people need to pass a swing gate that's down to go into the underground parking lot, and there's a rope blocking access to the stairs in the front of the building. Just because can walk around the back to view the ocean doesn't make it a "thoroughfare" since access to the building and grounds is clearly restricted. Plus the term "thoroughfare" kind of insinuates a road or path forming a route between two places and there's no second place for a car or pedestrian to get to if it's blocked off. Are you seriously going to tell me the building is a public road just because they allow people at their discretion to walk behind the building? By that standard my local grocery store would be a public road because people walk through their parking lot all the time. The fact is that most businesses out there allows foot traffic through their property. Heck, my neighbor's yard and house must be a public road since he lets me walk through it to dump my trash. /s --Adamant1 (talk) 07:40, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
- Keep Txo (discusión) Mi discusión en castellano 08:26, 23 October 2023 (UTC) Es un edificio público y está situado en la vía pública como se puede ver en "google maps" y también en su web https://auditoriodetenerife.com/es/ . No tiene ningún sentido el borrado.
- Why is there a fence, rope blocking access to the stairs around the building, and a gate people to need to get through to access the underground parking lot then? Oh yeah, and the building is only for specific events. That doesn't sound like a public building to me. Also where does the law or guideline say buildings on private property next to roads, not in or on them, qualify for FOP? --Adamant1 (talk) 08:34, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
- Es un edificio perteneciente a una administración pública, el Cabildo Insular de Tenerife, que es el órgano de gobierno de la isla de Tenerife. Es un espacio y edificio perteneciente al gobierno de la isla de Tenerife, gestionado por una empresa pública {{cita|Auditorio de Tenerife es una empresa pública (Sociedad Anónima Unipersonal) dependiente del Cabildo Insular fundada en 2002 para gestionar la actividad del edificio con el mismo nombre, que actualmente es el principal centro de producción de espectáculos de Canarias (ver [https://auditoriodetenerife.com/es/el-auditorio/quienes-somos Quienes somos). El acceso, está regulado según el uso que desde la empresa de gestión determinan 8empresa pública). Txo (discusión) Mi discusión en castellano 16:42, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
- Why is there a fence, rope blocking access to the stairs around the building, and a gate people to need to get through to access the underground parking lot then? Oh yeah, and the building is only for specific events. That doesn't sound like a public building to me. Also where does the law or guideline say buildings on private property next to roads, not in or on them, qualify for FOP? --Adamant1 (talk) 08:34, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
- Keep "On streets" appears to be the point of contention. Interpreting that the building must be "on the street" is a silly interpretation, if it literally was on the street, cars could not pass. We have used the interpretation to mean "visible from the street" or "visible to the public". You cannot trespass on private property to take an image. This would have been handled better as a question at Village Pump, rather than diving into a massive deletion. --RAN (talk) 12:57, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
- Usually the whole "visible from the street" or "visible to the public" thing only applies in countries where the law says it does. Otherwise "located in a public place" doesn't usually mean "wherever someone can take a picture of know matter the location." For instance my house that's located on private land down a long driveway wouldn't be considered "on or in a throughfare" or a public place just because someone can see the top of my chimney from the road. Except for maybe in Germany since there's a "line of sight" rule there, but their a rare exception and Spain isn't. Otherwise their law or at least legal experts would say so. --Adamant1 (talk) 13:07, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
- Keep Having been there, I can say that the auditorium is located in a public area, there are no access restrictions for the outside, so it is obviously eligible for FOP. It is a government-owned building and hence is public land (see [1]). Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 17:38, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
- Keep First time in my live that I hear that a building on Spanish soil could be a FOP violation. I've been there twice and had no problem to access the site from any side. Furthermore, the building belongs to the town hall and is therefore public [2], including the surrounding area. The only thing I agree on with Adamant1 here is that Santiago Calatrava didn't die over 70 years ago. Poco a poco (talk) 17:39, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
Comment it's not even clear Spain has freedom of panorama Adamant1, you wrote this on the other similar DR, and I think you may have a point here, so I removed my 'Keep' vote. The Spanish FOP Wiki page lists the case as 'unclear', and the general FOP wiki page, although listing spain as 'FOP - OK' at the beginning, further down specifically highlights the Auditorio de Tenerife as a potential exception, because it is trademarked (and indeed it is). I'm unsure if this constitutes sufficient grounds to delete all images, or if we just need some sort of template that highlights exceptions (similar to the Personality rights template applied to portratis). I hope that someone that is well into the details can weight in here. --Julesvernex2 (talk) 09:58, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
- Commons hosts loads and loads of trademarked images, because trademark is a non-copyright restriction and Commons does not enforce non-copyright restrictions except when required to do so by law (as, for example, in cases of child pornography and so on). -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 13:48, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
- See: Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Newspaper advertising in Allentown, Pennsylvania for another large tranche of deletion nominations by Adamant1 based on a misunderstanding of international copyright law, which would have been better handled by asking a question at the Village Pump. --RAN (talk) 19:22, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
- I'm not really exactly what the miss-understanding was there or how I relates to this. Let alone what you think I should have asked about on the Village Pump. Both cases seem pretty cut and dry to me. Especially the other DR that your referring to. Even if the images are kept in both cases it's my job to ask on the Village Pump about every little nuance of the law just because the copyright status of certain images might be ambiguous. Especially in a case like this one where the country doesn't even seem to have FOP in the first place. It's extremely unrealistic to expect someone to ask on the Village Pump if something in a guideline is correct every time they want to nominate an image for deletion. "Oh hey, anyone here mind if I follow the guidelines?" Sure RAN. If anything the people who disagree with it should be asking the questions. Spain's issues with FOP seem pretty clear though and I'm not the one who disagrees with the legal experts or case law about it. So there isn't really anything I personally should or want to ask about on the village pump. The same goes for the other DR. Although your free to start a conversation on the Village Pump about either if you think they need be discussed since your the one who disagrees with the status quo in both cases. My guess is that you won't though. --Adamant1 (talk) 02:30, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
- Keep, per Mike Peel, Poco a poco, Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )and Txo -- Ooligan (talk) 03:19, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
- Delete under COM:FOP Spain are listed two cases in which similar works are protected by copyright. One very prominent example is the Toro de Osborne which for sure is in a public place.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 10:44, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
Files in Category:Auditorio de Tenerife (detail)[edit]
According to Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Spain Spanish FOP law only allows for works that are "permanently located in parks or on streets, squares or other public thoroughfares." Whereas this auditorium clearly isn't situated in or on a public throughfare. So these images are copyrighted until an undetermined date since the artist, Santiago Calatrava, seems to still be alive.
- File:At Tenerife 2020 888.jpg
- File:Auditorio de Tenerife 003.JPG
- File:Auditorio de Tenerife 004.JPG
- File:Auditorio de Tenerife 005.JPG
- File:Auditorio de Tenerife 006.JPG
- File:Auditorio de Tenerife 007.JPG
- File:Auditorio de Tenerife 008.JPG
- File:Auditorio de Tenerife 009.JPG
- File:Auditorio de Tenerife 010.JPG
- File:Auditorio de Tenerife 011.JPG
- File:Auditorio de Tenerife Adán Martín (detail), Tenerife, Spain (PPL1-Corrected) julesvernex2-2.jpg
- File:Auditorio de Tenerife Adán Martín (detail), Tenerife, Spain (PPL1-Corrected) julesvernex2-3.jpg
- File:Auditorio de Tenerife Adán Martín (detail), Tenerife, Spain (PPL1-Corrected) julesvernex2.jpg
- File:Auditorio de Tenerife Adán Martín (detail), Tenerife, Spain (PPL2-Enhanced) julesvernex2-2.jpg
- File:Auditorio de Tenerife Adán Martín (detail), Tenerife, Spain (PPL2-Enhanced) julesvernex2-3.jpg
- File:Auditorio de Tenerife Adán Martín (detail), Tenerife, Spain (PPL2-Enhanced) julesvernex2-4.jpg
- File:Auditorio de Tenerife Adán Martín (detail), Tenerife, Spain (PPL2-Enhanced) julesvernex2-5.jpg
- File:Auditorio de Tenerife Adán Martín (detail), Tenerife, Spain (PPL2-Enhanced) julesvernex2-6.jpg
- File:Auditorio de Tenerife Adán Martín (detail), Tenerife, Spain (PPL2-Enhanced) julesvernex2.jpg
- File:Auditorio de Tenerife Treppenaufgang.JPG
- File:Auditorio de Tenerife, brillo, España, 2015.JPG
- File:Auditorio de Tenerife, escaleras, España, 2015.JPG
- File:Auditorio de Tenerife, punta, España, 2015.JPG
- File:Auditorio de Tenerife, Santa Cruz de Tenerife, España, 2012-12-15, DD 13.jpg
- File:Auditorio de Tenerife, sombra, España, 2015.JPG
- File:Auditorio Nord 02.jpg
- File:Auditorio Nord 03.jpg
- File:Canaries Tenerife Santa Cruz Auditorio Hall - panoramio.jpg
- File:Desperfectos lateral izquierdo, Auditorio de Tenerife, España, 2015.JPG
- File:Luces, Auditorio de Tenerife, España, 2015.JPG
- File:Nueve aberturas, Auditorio de Tenerife, España, 2015.JPG
- File:Santa Cruz de Tenerife auditoriun, Canary Islands, Spain - panoramio.jpg
- File:Santa Cruz de Tenerife, Spain - panoramio (131).jpg
- File:Santa Cruz Statue der Sophia Vari vorm Auditorio fcm.jpg
- File:Teneriffe, Auditorium Adán Martín.jpg
- File:Tuba outside the Auditorio de Tenerife Adán Martín, Tenerife, Spain (PPL3-Altered) julesvernex2.jpg
- File:Una gran cantidad de azulejos blancos - panoramio.jpg
Adamant1 (talk) 04:14, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
- Please explain, why do you think, "this auditorium clearly isn't situated in or on a public throughfare." I visit the site and can say, it is clearly situated in or on a public throughfare! There is no gate - in fact this is a public space - call it street or square. Maybe it helps to use streetview --Rlbberlin (talk) 06:43, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
- A couple of things, first of all adjacent to road the road on private property and only receives meaningful traffic when something is going on there. Which doesn't make it either "in or on a throughfare" or even public for purposes of the law. Also, your assertion that its a public street because there's no fence and you walk through there sometimes is totally ridiculous since the grounds of most businesses aren't fenced off and people walk through them if they want to. It's called window shopping. That doesn't mean the buildings of every business is a street or qualifies for FOP. In this case I assume they allow admittance to the building for specific events and can kick anyone off the property if they want to. So it's not really "public." Even if that weren't the case though, "in or on a throughfare" doesn't every building even slightly near, by, or adjacent to a road qualifies for FOP in Spain. Same goes for every building where people can walk through the property under certain conditions. BTW, looking at Google Street view access the stairs going around the building are also blocked, there's gate at the entrance to the underground parking lot, and the left side of the property is fenced off. None of that makes a "thoroughfare" even if people can walk around the back. --Adamant1 (talk) 07:24, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
- Please explain, why do you think, "this auditorium clearly isn't situated in or on a public throughfare." I visit the site and can say, it is clearly situated in or on a public throughfare! There is no gate - in fact this is a public space - call it street or square. Maybe it helps to use streetview --Rlbberlin (talk) 06:43, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
KeepPer the reasons stated in the other similar deletion request you opened. In the future, please open a single deletion request, so that the the entire discussion is kept in one place. I also urge you to respond to those that oppose your views with the same courtesy that they have shown you. Statements like the "your assertion [...] is totally ridiculous" above are uncalled for and unproductive. --Julesvernex2 (talk) 07:41, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
- Statements like the "your assertion [...] is totally ridiculous" above are uncalled for and unproductive. I'd say the same about keep statements that are based purely on procedural nitpicking or language policing instead of addressing the reasons I gave for the deletion request. I'm under no obligation to open a single deletion request. Where as it is on keep voters to state why they think images should be kept. And just an FYI, but your comment in the other deletion doesn't do anything in regard for the reasons I've already provided in both DRs. That's not to say I have an issue with you referring to a comment in another deletion request, but I urge to at least wait until the DR where you made the comment is closed in case your logic turns out to be wrong, or at least hold of on linking to it until the discussion is over with and summarize your points. --Adamant1 (talk) 07:50, 23 October 2023 (UTC)-
- Keep Having been there, I can say that the auditorium is located in a public area, there are no access restrictions for the outside, so it is obviously eligible for FOP. It is a government-owned building and hence is public land (see [3]). Additionally, File:At Tenerife 2020 888.jpg was literally taken from across a public thoroughfare. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 17:38, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
- There are no access restrictions for the outside I must have imagined the rope blocking access to the stairs and the fence blocking off the right of the property on Google Street View then. That aside though, do you have any sources to back up your claim that the images would qualify for FOP simply because you took them while standing on a public thoroughfare? Because there doesn't seem to be anything in the guidelines for Spain saying where the photograph was taken from matters. --Adamant1 (talk) 00:24, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
- This fence/rope and this fence are temporary, as you can check yourself by browsing earlier versions of Street View (click on the bottom thumbnails) or checking the images you have nominated for deletion, such as this one (taken from the back of the building) or this one (taken from the top of the staircase). Not that it matters in the slightest: both on this DR and on your other similar DR, you have been provided with ample evidence that this is a public building located on public grounds. There may be some contentious claims of FOP out there, but this is not one of them. --Julesvernex2 (talk) 08:25, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
- Just a clarification, Someone else told me to look at Google Street View because supposedly it showed they don't restrict access to the public and that's not what the images showed. So I pointed it out. Nowhere I have claimed the fence or rope are permanent, but it really wouldn't matter anyway since in most places the important thing to what makes something a public throughfare or place is if the owner can deny access to the public, not how long or to what degree. Simply that they have the ability to if they want to. Which is clearly the case here even if the fence and rope don't exist 7 days a week, 365 days a year. And I don't really care if people disagree with that. It's how these laws work and I'm not going to act like it isn't just so a couple of uploaders don't go around throwing a tantrums by bigrading discussions and insulting me in other DRs just because a few of their images were potentially deleted. Regardless, all we need here is reasonable doubt and I think I've shown that. It's ultimately on whomever closes this to decide the outcome, but the evidence is what it is and it clearly leans towards it not being a part of the square, "in or on" a public throughfare", and them being able to restrict access to the public on an arbitrarily bases if they want to. None of which would make these images qualify for FOP. Especially since it's not even clear Spain has freedom of panorama to begin with. Really, the images should be deleted just on that alone regardless of the other issues. --Adamant1 (talk) 09:14, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
- I've seen roads in the Canary Islands temporarily closed for events, does that make them not public thoroughfares? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 09:28, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
- Your question seems like kind of a strawman since auditoriums obviously aren't roads, but I'll answer it anyway since its seems like people aren't going to just drop this. Sure roads are public throughfares even if they are temporarily closed for events, because they aren't owned and operated by a third party who has full time staff that manages the property (can kick whomever they want off the property for whatever reason they feel like) and exists outside of the roads department. Plus roads don't usually have closing and opening hours. Whereas, auditoriums obviously do. I'm sure you get the differences. --Adamant1 (talk) 09:41, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
- I've seen roads in the Canary Islands temporarily closed for events, does that make them not public thoroughfares? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 09:28, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
- Just a clarification, Someone else told me to look at Google Street View because supposedly it showed they don't restrict access to the public and that's not what the images showed. So I pointed it out. Nowhere I have claimed the fence or rope are permanent, but it really wouldn't matter anyway since in most places the important thing to what makes something a public throughfare or place is if the owner can deny access to the public, not how long or to what degree. Simply that they have the ability to if they want to. Which is clearly the case here even if the fence and rope don't exist 7 days a week, 365 days a year. And I don't really care if people disagree with that. It's how these laws work and I'm not going to act like it isn't just so a couple of uploaders don't go around throwing a tantrums by bigrading discussions and insulting me in other DRs just because a few of their images were potentially deleted. Regardless, all we need here is reasonable doubt and I think I've shown that. It's ultimately on whomever closes this to decide the outcome, but the evidence is what it is and it clearly leans towards it not being a part of the square, "in or on" a public throughfare", and them being able to restrict access to the public on an arbitrarily bases if they want to. None of which would make these images qualify for FOP. Especially since it's not even clear Spain has freedom of panorama to begin with. Really, the images should be deleted just on that alone regardless of the other issues. --Adamant1 (talk) 09:14, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
- There are no access restrictions for the outside I must have imagined the rope blocking access to the stairs and the fence blocking off the right of the property on Google Street View then. That aside though, do you have any sources to back up your claim that the images would qualify for FOP simply because you took them while standing on a public thoroughfare? Because there doesn't seem to be anything in the guidelines for Spain saying where the photograph was taken from matters. --Adamant1 (talk) 00:24, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
Comment it's not even clear Spain has freedom of panorama I think you may have a point here, so I removed my 'Keep' vote. The Spanish FOP Wiki page lists the case as 'unclear', and the general FOP wiki page, although listing spain as 'FOP - OK' at the beginning, further down specifically highlights the Auditorio de Tenerife as a potential exception, because it is trademarked (and indeed it is). I'm unsure if this constitutes sufficient grounds to delete all images, or if we just need some sort of template that highlights exceptions (similar to the Personality rights template applied to portratis). I hope that someone that is well into the details can weight in here. --Julesvernex2 (talk) 09:55, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
- Keep First time in my live that I hear that a building on Spanish soil could be a FOP violation. I've been there twice and had no problem to access the site from any side. Furthermore, the building belongs to the town hall and is therefore public [4], including the surrounding area. The only thing I agree on with Adamant1 here is that Santiago Calatrava didn't die over 70 years ago. Poco a poco (talk) 07:59, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
- First time in my live that I hear that a building on Spanish soil could be a FOP violation. There's plenty of instances of exactly that here. So it by no means be an anomaly if these images were deleted. And as to your personal accessing the site, your personal experiences with buildings being in Spain FOP violations clearly aren't valid. So I don't see why you accessing the site would be. Oh and BTW, as I think other people have already pointed out, the determining factor to if somewhere is a "public place" or not has nothing to do with ownership. At least not in the way your insinuating it does. The government can own a building and it can still be a private place for purposes of FOP. They aren't mutually exclusive. --Adamant1 (talk) 08:09, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
Files in Category:Auditorio de Tenerife at night[edit]
According to Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Spain Spanish FOP law only allows for works that are "permanently located in parks or on streets, squares or other public thoroughfares." Whereas this auditorium clearly isn't situated in or on a public throughfare. So these images are copyrighted until an undetermined date since the artist, Santiago Calatrava, seems to still be alive.
- File:Auditorio Adán Martín (vista frontal).jpg
- File:Auditorio Adán Martín (vista trasera).jpg
- File:Auditorio Adán Martín.jpg
- File:Auditorio de Tenerife, Santa Cruz de Tenerife, España, 2012-12-15, DD 14.jpg
- File:Auditorio de Tenerife, Santa Cruz de Tenerife, España, 2012-12-15, DD 15.jpg
- File:Auditorio de Tenerife, Santa Cruz de Tenerife, España, 2012-12-15, DD 16.jpg
- File:Auditorio de Tenerife, Santa Cruz de Tenerife, España, 2012-12-15, DD 17.jpg
- File:Auditorio de Tenerife, Santa Cruz de Tenerife, España, 2012-12-15, DD 18.jpg
- File:Auditorio de Tenerife, Santa Cruz de Tenerife, España, 2012-12-15, DD 19.jpg
- File:Auditorio de Tenerife, Santa Cruz de Tenerife, España, 2012-12-15, DD 20.jpg
- File:Auditorio de Tenerife, Santa Cruz de Tenerife, España, 2012-12-15, DD 21.jpg
- File:Auditorio de Tenerife, Santa Cruz de Tenerife, España, 2012-12-15, DD 22.jpg
- File:Auditorio de Tenerife, Santa Cruz de Tenerife, España, 2012-12-15, DD 23.jpg
- File:Auditorio de Tenerife, Santa Cruz de Tenerife, España, 2012-12-15, DD 24.jpg
- File:Auditorio de Tenerife, Santa Cruz de Tenerife, España, 2012-12-15, DD 26.jpg
- File:Auditoriotenerifenoche.jpg
- File:Opernhaus Teneriffa IMG 5373.jpg
- File:Santa Cruz de Tenerife Auditorium.jpg
Adamant1 (talk) 04:17, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
- I've never been at the site. But from a satellite view perspective this is perfectly located at a public square. --AFBorchert (talk) 13:09, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
- Going by Google Street View it's next to the square, but doesn't seem to be a part of it. There's also evidence that they block access to the public. For instance the left side of the property is fenced off along the road, access to the stairs leading to the back of the building is roped off, and there's a swing gate that people have to go through to access the underground parking lot. Plus people are only allowed in the building for special events. Although people can walk around the back, but that doesn't make it a "throughfare" because all you can do is walk around to the other side where there's a fence. And it's not really a public place if it's not open most of the time and they can arbitrarily deny members of the public access either to the building or property if they want to. Otherwise any business would be a "public throughfare" because people can walk through the parking lot. --Adamant1 (talk) 13:15, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
- To me it looks different at Google Streetview. The entire opera house is in the centre of a public square where you can walk around there. And the opera house and the surrounding square appear to be owned by the public. --AFBorchert (talk) 17:09, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
- Its actually off to the side of the square next to some offices that are along the water, not in the middle of it. The park/square Plaza Del Castillo Negro, which is what I'm assuming your talking about, is on the other side. Also as far as I can tell Spanish FoP has nothing to do with what entity owns the building. We'll have to agree to disagree about both though, but its pretty obvious from looking at the Street View images that access is restricted, its not in the middle of the park, and the there isn't any evidence that FoP in Spain has anything to do with ownership. Otherwise I'm fine changing my opinion if you provide a source saying so. But I'm kind of arguing about it in absence of actual proof for anything. --Adamant1 (talk) 00:02, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
- To me it looks different at Google Streetview. The entire opera house is in the centre of a public square where you can walk around there. And the opera house and the surrounding square appear to be owned by the public. --AFBorchert (talk) 17:09, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
- Going by Google Street View it's next to the square, but doesn't seem to be a part of it. There's also evidence that they block access to the public. For instance the left side of the property is fenced off along the road, access to the stairs leading to the back of the building is roped off, and there's a swing gate that people have to go through to access the underground parking lot. Plus people are only allowed in the building for special events. Although people can walk around the back, but that doesn't make it a "throughfare" because all you can do is walk around to the other side where there's a fence. And it's not really a public place if it's not open most of the time and they can arbitrarily deny members of the public access either to the building or property if they want to. Otherwise any business would be a "public throughfare" because people can walk through the parking lot. --Adamant1 (talk) 13:15, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
File:Lengthily Mural. Our Lady Of Guadalupe, In Explore 8-10-23 - Flickr - Joey Z1.jpg[edit]
No FoP for 2D works in the United States A1Cafel (talk) 04:30, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
AI Alexiad scenes uploaded by Leptictidium[edit]
- File:Alexios I Komnenos and Irene Doukaina playing with their daughter Anna Komnene.png
- File:Anna Komnene writing the Alexiad at Kecharitomene.png
- File:John II Komnenos and Nikephoros Bryennios the Younger.png
- File:Alexios I Komnenos with his daughter Anna Komnene on his lap.png
- File:John II Komnenos poring over a map during his Syrian campaign.png
- File:Alexios I Komnenos on the throne with his daughter Anna standing by his side.png
- File:John II Komnenos reading in his tent during his Syrian campaign.png
I uploaded all these Midjourney-generated pictures to serve as illustrations for the Catalan translation of the Alexiad, but they're not being used for such purpose and is unlikely they ever will because their low quality has since been far surpassed by AI tools. Since Commons isn't a repository of random unused files with unclear use cases, I'm nominating them for deletion. Thank you.--Leptictidium (talk) 06:37, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
File:UHH-Logo 2010 small invers.svg[edit]
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:UHH-Logo_2010_small_invers.svg Since the beginning of the 2010s, the logo is allowed only in this variant: https://www.uni-hamburg.de/newsroom/presse/medieninformationen/logo.html Tebvx (talk) 07:32, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
File:Khreshchatyk Tymoshenko Camp November 2012 (small).JPG[edit]
No freedom of panorama in Ukraine A1Cafel (talk) 08:08, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
- Keep because of the current event exemption in Ukrainian copyright law. This provision is known to supersede FOP and apply even after the event: publishing house printing a book with pictures of an event occurring in front of a copyrighted mural did not violate the copyright law. en:Criminal cases against Yulia Tymoshenko since 2010 and associated protests were a notable current event in Ukraine in November 2012, and this photo directly depicts them — NickK (talk) 21:54, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
- As far as I understand, the question is if the poster itself is copyrighted. It might be, I guess... Andrei Romanenko (talk) 07:29, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
File:Tv100.png[edit]
This file was initially tagged by Gnomingstuff as Speedy (SD) and the most recent rationale was: G10 Is a logo of a small Indian TV channel with a Wikidata entry OK? Yann (talk) 08:29, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
- Delete*: Blatant spam, read description and username, COM:SPAM applies. Gnomingstuff (talk) 13:40, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
- The description can be edited. Your nomination dooesn't answer my question about notability. Yann (talk) 14:12, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
- Keep TV channels are surely in scope, and no problem with COM:TOO India. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:31, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
File:Xpertdoc Logo 2016 FR.svg[edit]
Colors are not showing - the company re-uploaded another version with colors. Aapellerin (talk) 17:46, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. Ruthven (msg) 15:24, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
File:Xpertdoc Logo 2016 FR.svg[edit]
This file was initially tagged by Gnomingstuff as Speedy (SD) and the most recent rationale was: G10 Kept in a DR before. Yann (talk) 08:36, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
- Delete: COM:SPAM: Created as spam, promotional logo; the user's only activity consists of promotion for this company which is outright admitted by them ("Aapellerin on behalf of Xpertdoc Technologies Inc"). Gnomingstuff (talk) 13:44, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
- Keep per the last DR, and I think it's OK per COM:TOO Canada. Relevant per w:Xpertdoc. It's immaterial what the motives of the uploader were, and I find that reasoning for deletion irritating. The question isn't what the uploader wanted but whether an image is plausibly useful. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:30, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
Palazzo INAIL (Messina)[edit]
Pointless gallery since it just re-recreates the buildings main category, which isn't their point. Adamant1 (talk) 09:03, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
Files in Category:Palazzo dell'INAIL (Messina)[edit]
Unfortunately there's no FOP in Italy and the architect of this building, Giuseppe Samonà, died in 1983. So these images are copyrighted until at least 2054.
- File:Palazzo dell'INAIL(Giuseppe Samonà).jpg
- File:Palazzo dell'INAIL(Giuseppe Samonà)1.jpg
- File:Palazzo dell'INAIL(Giuseppe Samonà)2.jpg
- File:Palazzo dell'INAIL(Giuseppe Samonà)3.jpg
- File:Palazzo dell'INAIL(Giuseppe Samonà)4.jpg
- File:Palazzo dell'INAIL(Giuseppe Samonà)5.jpg
- File:Palazzo dell'INAIL(Giuseppe Samonà)6.jpg
- File:Palazzo dell'INAIL(Giuseppe Samonà)7.jpg
- File:Palazzo dell'INAIL.jpg
Adamant1 (talk) 09:06, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
- Keep per Commons:Copyright_rules_by_territory/Italy#General_rules (articles 11 and 29 of the italian copyright law), public administrations have the copyright for the works made on their behalf and paid by them, which expires after 20 years. This palace was made on behalf and paid by it:Istituto nazionale per l'assicurazione contro gli infortuni sul lavoro, which is a public entity of the italian ministry.--Friniate (talk) 12:51, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
- Public administrations have the copyright for the works made on their behalf Not exactly. public administrations have the copyright for works "published" on their behalf and buildings aren't "published works." Nor are architects considered "authors" either BTW. So there's really no reason to think the law applies here. Although even if I granted you that it did, it's not really clear if the term expires after 20 years, the rights go back to the "author" after 2, both, or neither happen. Let alone is there even solid judicial evidence that public administrations retain copyrights of works published on their behalf to begin with. Really the evidence points to that not being the case, but again, it's irrelevant anyway because buildings aren't "published works" and architects aren't "authors" in the first place. Both of which you should know by now since I've told you as much multiple times in other DRs where you copy and pasted the same generic keep message. --Adamant1 (talk) 13:45, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
- The issue if architects should be considered authors or not is irrelevant, since that part applies only to "publications and essays published by academies" for which these cultural instituions keep the copyright for two years. The works for which a 20-year copyright applies are regulated by another sentence, the law is very clear on this subject, there is no ambiguity at all. Something that you should know, since someone would expect that you read the fucking law before opening multiple DRs with copypasted rationales. Friniate (talk) 14:29, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
- Public administrations have the copyright for the works made on their behalf Not exactly. public administrations have the copyright for works "published" on their behalf and buildings aren't "published works." Nor are architects considered "authors" either BTW. So there's really no reason to think the law applies here. Although even if I granted you that it did, it's not really clear if the term expires after 20 years, the rights go back to the "author" after 2, both, or neither happen. Let alone is there even solid judicial evidence that public administrations retain copyrights of works published on their behalf to begin with. Really the evidence points to that not being the case, but again, it's irrelevant anyway because buildings aren't "published works" and architects aren't "authors" in the first place. Both of which you should know by now since I've told you as much multiple times in other DRs where you copy and pasted the same generic keep message. --Adamant1 (talk) 13:45, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
- Keep as invalid request. Clearly the list of 9 files was made without care for de minimis or making sure there's actually a doubt of copyright infringement. Nemo 17:25, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
Category:Bernie Sanders shrugging[edit]
No need for this very specific category. I suggest to change the cats of the only media file contained (or I can do it myself) and to delete this cat. Du Hugin Skulblaka (talk) 07:00, 23 October 2023 (UTC)}}
- Was this category depopulated? My understanding is that we have a lot of photos of Sanders that show him in this pose. czar 12:09, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
- not by me at least. I more like stumbled across this category and thought it odd to have it for just one file. --Du Hugin Skulblaka (talk) 23:52, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
Files in Category:Palazzo INAIL (Venice)[edit]
Unfortunately there's no FOP in Italy and the architect of this building, Giuseppe Samonà, died in 1983. So these images are copyrighted until at least 2054.
- File:Paolo Monti - Servizio fotografico - BEIC 6355639 (cropped).jpg
- File:Paolo Monti - Servizio fotografico - BEIC 6355639.jpg
- File:Paolo Monti - Servizio fotografico - BEIC 6355710.jpg
- File:Paolo Monti - Servizio fotografico - BEIC 6356008.jpg
- File:Veduta esterna della sede dell'INAIL a Venezia.jpg
Adamant1 (talk) 09:09, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
- Keep per Commons:Copyright_rules_by_territory/Italy#General_rules (articles 11 and 29 of the italian copyright law), public administrations have the copyright for the works made on their behalf and paid by them, which expires after 20 years. This palace was made on behalf and paid (see) by it:Istituto nazionale per l'assicurazione contro gli infortuni sul lavoro, which is a public entity of the italian ministry.--Friniate (talk) 12:37, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
- Public administrations have the copyright for the works made on their behalf Not exactly. public administrations have the copyright for works "published" on their behalf and buildings aren't "published works." Nor are architects considered "authors" either BTW. So there's really no reason to think the law applies here. Although even if I granted you that it did, it's not really clear if the term expires after 20 years, the rights go back to the "author" after 2, both, or neither happen. Let alone is there even solid judicial evidence that public administrations retain copyrights of works published on their behalf to begin with. Really the evidence points to that not being the case, but again, it's irrelevant anyway because buildings aren't "published works" and architects aren't "authors" in the first place. --Adamant1 (talk) 12:51, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
- The burden of the proof that this part of the law is not applied by judges is on you, not on me. The issue if architects should be considered authors or not is irrelevant, since that part applies only to "publications and memories published by academies" for which these cultural instituions keep the copyright for two years. The works for which a 20-year copyright applies are regulated by another sentence, the law is very clear on this subject, there is no ambiguity at all. Friniate (talk) 13:20, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
- No, actually the burden of proof is on people who think the files should be kept. All there needs to be on my end is reasonable doubt that the files aren't PD for them to be deleted, which I think is met. It's not my job to make your argument for you in the meantime though. Your the one claiming the part of the law your citing applies to architects. So what's your evidence that it does? Is there any actual legal cases of a city suing someone for using images of a work of architecture they own to substantiate what your saying? Have any legal theorists have any opinions about it? And no I don't think the law is clear about it. Otherwise we wouldn't be having this discussion. At least the guideline says "created and published." So you clearly can't separate the two. The thing about the difference in length of terms is also in the same paragraph. So they clearly follow and related to each other. Plus, the last time I checked government organizations can be "cultural institutions." So there's no reason the copyright wouldn't lapse after two years in the case of works created AND published for government bodies.
- You are mixing two different articles. Article 29 as I said is very clear, and the burden is on you to demonstrate that is not applied by judges. That part about the two years is referred only to "communications and essays" published by academies and cultural institutions (something that INAIL clearly isn't BTW). And yes, the law is very clear on the subject, and we're having a discussion on this topic only because you clearly don't know italian and you have simply misunderstood a sentence on commons' guidelines written in an ambigous way.
- Article 11 on the other side has that "and" which is indeed ambiguous. Nevertheless, I thought that here it was agreed that given the acts of italian municipalities which seems to indicate that municipalities hold the copyrights on monuments made on their behalf, that part is indeed applied also to monuments.--Friniate (talk) 14:23, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
- I think I covered why I'm not mixing the two pretty well in another DR. You can say I don't know or understand Italian law all day long, but I've cited it multiple times now and the guideline seems to follow the wording in article 11 pretty well. Although I agree that the guideline is written in an ambiguous way, but not enough to justify acting like it's invalid. Since again it mostly, if not completely, is in line with the law. And I don't think 19 changes that any since the first sentence of it says the "The duration of the exclusive rights of economic use due, in accordance with the art. 11." Whereas as I've already pointed out article 11 clearly states it only covers "published documents." You can quibble over the nuances of what might qualify as a "published document" all day long, but article 19 obviously applies to the law set out in 11 and no judge is going to say that a building is a document. "Document" have a particular, widely agreed on meaning that doesn't change based on your personal preferences just so some images can be kept though. Otherwise its you show there's legal precedent or at commentary by lawyers saying that the term "published documents" extends to things other then what people generally mean by "published documents." I don't see you providing any though. --Adamant1 (talk) 03:36, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
- Exactly my point, no judge is going to say that a building is a document, and article 29 (what has article 19 to do with all of this?) is very clear in saying that the two-years threshold applies only to essays and communications published by academies and public cultural institutions. Therefore, not to buildings, for which it's applied the 20-years threshold without a rollback of the copyright to the author. Friniate (talk) 10:21, 25 October 2023 (UTC)\
- what has article 19 to do with all of this? I don't know. Your the one who cited it in another DR where we were having the same discussion. So why don't ask your self that? Regardless, I've already explained why I don't think your correct ad-nauseum and it's pretty clear neither one of us are going to our change positions. So we should probably just drop it here. Although I have asked multiple times now why the government of Italy is giving WLMs Italy permission to take photographs of buildings that were constructed more then 20 years ago to begin. Obviously there'd be no reason to, let alone for WLMs to ask them for the permissions in the first place, if the copyright expired after 20 years. So why is there a need to get or provide permissions for buildings that are older then 20 years if the copyrights have expired then? --Adamant1 (talk) 11:23, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
- I never cited article 19, but ok, whatever, I can see that logical argumentations are not relevant here. I already explained too why you very clearly misunderstood the law, there is no way that it can mean what you claim, it's just not possible, it's clear to any italian-speaking person, something that you are not. You don't trust me? Fine, ask anybody else.
- WLM asks for permissions in the first place because of the non-copyright restriction that requires to ask to the owner of the monument for permission in order to take photos. The permission were therefore asked also for monuments clearly in PD (even medieval or roman stuff), the vast majority of the authorizations is in fact about monuments in PD. Then, it was added also a part that states clearly that the owners of the monument hold the copyright firstly in order to avoid discussions like this one, and also because there can be situations that are less clear (for example buildings built for a private company and then sold or donated to a public administration, cases not covered by the law and therefore regulated case-by-case by the contracts between the owners and the artists). Friniate (talk) 11:45, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
- I never cited article 19, but ok, whatever Technically correct since I meant Article 29 but fat fingered the number on my keyboard. That said, miss typing a key doesn't negate the point I was making. That seems to be the only way you can argue your position though, by dismissing what I'm saying because I hit the wrong on my keyboard or some nonsense like that.
- what has article 19 to do with all of this? I don't know. Your the one who cited it in another DR where we were having the same discussion. So why don't ask your self that? Regardless, I've already explained why I don't think your correct ad-nauseum and it's pretty clear neither one of us are going to our change positions. So we should probably just drop it here. Although I have asked multiple times now why the government of Italy is giving WLMs Italy permission to take photographs of buildings that were constructed more then 20 years ago to begin. Obviously there'd be no reason to, let alone for WLMs to ask them for the permissions in the first place, if the copyright expired after 20 years. So why is there a need to get or provide permissions for buildings that are older then 20 years if the copyrights have expired then? --Adamant1 (talk) 11:23, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
- Exactly my point, no judge is going to say that a building is a document, and article 29 (what has article 19 to do with all of this?) is very clear in saying that the two-years threshold applies only to essays and communications published by academies and public cultural institutions. Therefore, not to buildings, for which it's applied the 20-years threshold without a rollback of the copyright to the author. Friniate (talk) 10:21, 25 October 2023 (UTC)\
- I think I covered why I'm not mixing the two pretty well in another DR. You can say I don't know or understand Italian law all day long, but I've cited it multiple times now and the guideline seems to follow the wording in article 11 pretty well. Although I agree that the guideline is written in an ambiguous way, but not enough to justify acting like it's invalid. Since again it mostly, if not completely, is in line with the law. And I don't think 19 changes that any since the first sentence of it says the "The duration of the exclusive rights of economic use due, in accordance with the art. 11." Whereas as I've already pointed out article 11 clearly states it only covers "published documents." You can quibble over the nuances of what might qualify as a "published document" all day long, but article 19 obviously applies to the law set out in 11 and no judge is going to say that a building is a document. "Document" have a particular, widely agreed on meaning that doesn't change based on your personal preferences just so some images can be kept though. Otherwise its you show there's legal precedent or at commentary by lawyers saying that the term "published documents" extends to things other then what people generally mean by "published documents." I don't see you providing any though. --Adamant1 (talk) 03:36, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
- No, actually the burden of proof is on people who think the files should be kept. All there needs to be on my end is reasonable doubt that the files aren't PD for them to be deleted, which I think is met. It's not my job to make your argument for you in the meantime though. Your the one claiming the part of the law your citing applies to architects. So what's your evidence that it does? Is there any actual legal cases of a city suing someone for using images of a work of architecture they own to substantiate what your saying? Have any legal theorists have any opinions about it? And no I don't think the law is clear about it. Otherwise we wouldn't be having this discussion. At least the guideline says "created and published." So you clearly can't separate the two. The thing about the difference in length of terms is also in the same paragraph. So they clearly follow and related to each other. Plus, the last time I checked government organizations can be "cultural institutions." So there's no reason the copyright wouldn't lapse after two years in the case of works created AND published for government bodies.
- The burden of the proof that this part of the law is not applied by judges is on you, not on me. The issue if architects should be considered authors or not is irrelevant, since that part applies only to "publications and memories published by academies" for which these cultural instituions keep the copyright for two years. The works for which a 20-year copyright applies are regulated by another sentence, the law is very clear on this subject, there is no ambiguity at all. Friniate (talk) 13:20, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
- Public administrations have the copyright for the works made on their behalf Not exactly. public administrations have the copyright for works "published" on their behalf and buildings aren't "published works." Nor are architects considered "authors" either BTW. So there's really no reason to think the law applies here. Although even if I granted you that it did, it's not really clear if the term expires after 20 years, the rights go back to the "author" after 2, both, or neither happen. Let alone is there even solid judicial evidence that public administrations retain copyrights of works published on their behalf to begin with. Really the evidence points to that not being the case, but again, it's irrelevant anyway because buildings aren't "published works" and architects aren't "authors" in the first place. --Adamant1 (talk) 12:51, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
- WLM asks for permissions in the first place because of the non-copyright restriction I'm aware of all of that since we've already covered about a hundred times now. That wasn't my question. Or at least your answer doesn't adequately answer it. So I'll repeat the question in a way that can hopefully be answered this time. Assuming it's a non-copyright restriction, Commons doesn't care about non-copyright restrictions, and the monuments are already in the public domain due to being created more then 20 years ago, what exactly is the point in the agreements in those cases? In other words, why would anyone need or get or make an agreement to be able to photograph a monument that's already out of copyright because the term lapse? It doesn't make any sense. Especially on our end since we don't care about non-copyright restrictions to begin with.
- Like if someone wants to upload an image of a monument that's owned by a municipality but the term has supposedly lapse due to its age, what stops them from just uploading the image regardless of there not being an agreement and what will happen if they do? We aren't going to delete the image. There doesn't seem to be a legal basis for the municipality to sue the person outside of copyright infringement. And I can't think of any other reason the agreements need to exist outside of copyright. So I'm just at a lose as to what their purpose is or why we need them to begin with if they really have nothing to do with copyright. --Adamant1 (talk) 12:13, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
- Yes, but as I explained ad nauseam you misunderstood article 29 including a building in a category that the law clearly limits to essays and communications made by academies and public cultural institutions. I don't know what to say other that you have to trust me or every other italian speaker on that, there is no way that it can mean what you claim.
- Regarding WMI, Commons doesn't care, but italian public administrations do. There was a case in 2006 in which the italian Soprintendenza of Florence asked to wikimedia italy a lot of money for the usage of photos in PD (yes, they should have asked it to WMF or to the uploaders, but that wouldn't have changed anything). Since then progresses have been made, and the compromise found between WMI and the ministry is AFAIK that WMI has to ask to the owner of every monument the permission and has to put the Mibac-2012 disclaimer on the photos. Hence the authorization system. I fear though that here we are completely OT, if you have other questions send me a message on my talk page. Friniate (talk) 13:32, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
- My question had absolutely nothing to do with if buildings are essays, communications, academies, institutions, or anything you said. It was purely based on your claim that the copyright of works made on behalf of municipalities lapses after 20 years. Apparently you can't answer how your opinion that the copyright expires after 20 years works though lmao. At this point I bet I could ask you some totally unrelated to this and you'd answer with some nonsense about how I misunderstood article 29 and essays. The only you've explained it ad nauseam at this point is because you keep bringing it up like a robot when it has nothing to do with what I'm talking about. At least you sort of answered the question in the last paragraph though. Except you left out exactly why there was a need for WLMI to comprise with the ministry for works that aren't copyrighted to begin with, which was the whole point in my question, but whatever. I'll probably just ask someone from WLMI at some point since you clearly have no answer. --Adamant1 (talk) 14:33, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
- In your second comment you stated "Although even if I granted you that it did, it's not really clear if the term expires after 20 years, the rights go back to the "author" after 2". The fact that the copyright reverts back to the author is contained in article 29 in the part in which it talks about essays and communications from public cultural institutions and academies, although it's clear that you don't know that, since you are not able to read it and understand what it says. But if I'm not able to read a language I trust a user who can, I don't just start making up impossible meanings of a text that I can't read. If now you finally agree that your claim was wrong, then, I'll stop to talk about article 29, but as long as you bring it as a reason for deletion of course I have to talk about it.
- As for WLMI, because the law states that to reuse a work in PD of a protected cultural heritage monument for commercial uses, you have to pay a fee. Friniate (talk) 15:00, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
- Sure, I said that in my second comment. But the question still had nothing to do with it. So what's your point? You obviously just keep bringing it up because you need a way to distract from the fact that your whole 20 year thing doesn't make any sense what-so-ever. The copyright expiring after 20 years is clearly nonsense regardless of what ever I said at the beginning of the discussion. Otherwise there'd be zero reason for the agreements in those cases. But hey, have fun bringing up things that I'm not even talking about and don't matter. Are we done here or do you have some other irrelevant message from a month ago and has nothing to do with anything that you feel like going off about? --Adamant1 (talk) 15:23, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
- It was one of your original 3 points. You argued that monuments can't be published, that architects are not authors, and that in any case the copyright would go back to the authors after 2 years. Then, I've demonstrated that: 1. the monument is not included among the things with a 2-year copyright that then reverts back to the author, thy are included in the things with a 20 year copyright, that then does not revert back to the author 2. The architects are indeed not authors, and that is an additional proof of the first point, since "authors" are mentioned only by article 29 in the part in which it speaks about the 2-years copyright.
- Of your original answer, it remains only the part about the interpretation of that "published". The issue is currently being discussed here, where I've already brought plenty of indicators that it's not currently taken too literally by legal experts and public institutions, and that therefore it includes also monuments. Friniate (talk) 15:31, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
- It was one of your original 3 points. And...It still had nothing to do with my question about why there's agreements for buildings that were created more then 20 years ago if the copyright has lapsed at that point like your claiming. It's clear have no answer though and we are looping. So I'd appreciate it if we ended it here and gave other people a chance to vote if they want to. The village pump discussion is in no way decided matter. Nor are the supposed "indicators" conclusive. So in no way is this or any other DR where you've copied and pasted the same thing concluded. --Adamant1 (talk) 15:37, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
- How on earth can you say that I didn't answer to the question about the agreements? I really don't know how you can say things like this with a straight face, I really hope for you that you're are trolling. They weren't conclusive only for you, the other people who wrote there accepted them. But discussing with you is clearly a loss of time since you want to delete everything regardless of what I can possibly say. Friniate (talk) 16:22, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
- The other people who wrote there accepted them Really? From what I remember only Rosenzweig addressed it and all they said is that we "could" assume that's the law "might" mean. No one else said anything about it except for me and I clearly don't accept it. Jmabel didn't say anything about it. Neither did Ikan Kekek. So what other "people" accepted it? Let alone conclusively? I don't know how you say with a straight face that one person commenting that we "could" accept that the law "might" mean something is everyone else in the conversation besides me conclusively accepting something. Let alone how you can say I want to delete everything when I've gone out of my way to listen to your opinions and told you multiple times I was fine with blurring out parts of images so they could be kept if you wanted. Apparently caring about your opinion and blurring images is deleting everything regardless of what your saying. Weird take, but alright. It's pretty clear your just reasons to have an issue with me. And supposedly I'm the one trolling. Right. --Adamant1 (talk) 16:38, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
- I've an issue with unfounded rationales that delete the work of other users without any need to do it and without caring about what the actual law says. That's all.
- Anyway I never said that that discussion was conclusive. It shows though IMHO a consensus for keeping the images until further (contrary) evidence is brought (and in your recap you have ignored comments by other users but whatever). Friniate (talk) 17:16, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
- I have an issue with it to. That's why I've spent so much trying to discuss it and ask questions. I don't think the comments that have been in the discussion so far warrant keeping the images until evidence is brought up though. That's not how this works. There needs to be a consensus that it's OK for Commons to host the images before we keep them, not the other way around, and the thing about government ownership is only one small aspect of that. There's still the issue of proper documentation. The thing about agreements with churches still needs to be worked out Etc. Etc. There isn't even an agreement on the basics yet though. Let alone have all the issues been addressed or everything been properly documented. keeping the images until further (contrary) evidence is brought is just a way to avoid having to deal with other issues besides government ownership, which again, hasn't even been resolved. Anyway, I'd appreciate it if we left it here. These discussions are already to long and off-topic enough already. --Adamant1 (talk) 17:28, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
- Well I count 6 users in favour of that option and only you against. And I see it the other way round: deleting everything even in presence of quite some evidence that these images are ok would be a way of ending manu militari the discussion with the desired result before it reaches its conclusion and then present everyone with a fait accompli. Friniate (talk) 19:40, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
- I think your confused, but it doesn't matter anyway because more still needs to happen for the option to become policy, which is the only way that it will be at all authoritative. Although I don't think you have anything to worry about anyway since no one is claiming to delete this DR in the meantime. I know I'm not. So your whole multi-DR fear mongering diatribe about it is much to do about nothing. The same goes for your continued instance that "everything" is being deleted. When in fact literally nothing is. Maybe take a break, get some air, and stop acting like the sky is falling. It's really not helpful. --Adamant1 (talk) 19:49, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
- Well I count 6 users in favour of that option and only you against. And I see it the other way round: deleting everything even in presence of quite some evidence that these images are ok would be a way of ending manu militari the discussion with the desired result before it reaches its conclusion and then present everyone with a fait accompli. Friniate (talk) 19:40, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
- I have an issue with it to. That's why I've spent so much trying to discuss it and ask questions. I don't think the comments that have been in the discussion so far warrant keeping the images until evidence is brought up though. That's not how this works. There needs to be a consensus that it's OK for Commons to host the images before we keep them, not the other way around, and the thing about government ownership is only one small aspect of that. There's still the issue of proper documentation. The thing about agreements with churches still needs to be worked out Etc. Etc. There isn't even an agreement on the basics yet though. Let alone have all the issues been addressed or everything been properly documented. keeping the images until further (contrary) evidence is brought is just a way to avoid having to deal with other issues besides government ownership, which again, hasn't even been resolved. Anyway, I'd appreciate it if we left it here. These discussions are already to long and off-topic enough already. --Adamant1 (talk) 17:28, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
- The other people who wrote there accepted them Really? From what I remember only Rosenzweig addressed it and all they said is that we "could" assume that's the law "might" mean. No one else said anything about it except for me and I clearly don't accept it. Jmabel didn't say anything about it. Neither did Ikan Kekek. So what other "people" accepted it? Let alone conclusively? I don't know how you say with a straight face that one person commenting that we "could" accept that the law "might" mean something is everyone else in the conversation besides me conclusively accepting something. Let alone how you can say I want to delete everything when I've gone out of my way to listen to your opinions and told you multiple times I was fine with blurring out parts of images so they could be kept if you wanted. Apparently caring about your opinion and blurring images is deleting everything regardless of what your saying. Weird take, but alright. It's pretty clear your just reasons to have an issue with me. And supposedly I'm the one trolling. Right. --Adamant1 (talk) 16:38, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
- How on earth can you say that I didn't answer to the question about the agreements? I really don't know how you can say things like this with a straight face, I really hope for you that you're are trolling. They weren't conclusive only for you, the other people who wrote there accepted them. But discussing with you is clearly a loss of time since you want to delete everything regardless of what I can possibly say. Friniate (talk) 16:22, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
- It was one of your original 3 points. And...It still had nothing to do with my question about why there's agreements for buildings that were created more then 20 years ago if the copyright has lapsed at that point like your claiming. It's clear have no answer though and we are looping. So I'd appreciate it if we ended it here and gave other people a chance to vote if they want to. The village pump discussion is in no way decided matter. Nor are the supposed "indicators" conclusive. So in no way is this or any other DR where you've copied and pasted the same thing concluded. --Adamant1 (talk) 15:37, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
- Sure, I said that in my second comment. But the question still had nothing to do with it. So what's your point? You obviously just keep bringing it up because you need a way to distract from the fact that your whole 20 year thing doesn't make any sense what-so-ever. The copyright expiring after 20 years is clearly nonsense regardless of what ever I said at the beginning of the discussion. Otherwise there'd be zero reason for the agreements in those cases. But hey, have fun bringing up things that I'm not even talking about and don't matter. Are we done here or do you have some other irrelevant message from a month ago and has nothing to do with anything that you feel like going off about? --Adamant1 (talk) 15:23, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
- My question had absolutely nothing to do with if buildings are essays, communications, academies, institutions, or anything you said. It was purely based on your claim that the copyright of works made on behalf of municipalities lapses after 20 years. Apparently you can't answer how your opinion that the copyright expires after 20 years works though lmao. At this point I bet I could ask you some totally unrelated to this and you'd answer with some nonsense about how I misunderstood article 29 and essays. The only you've explained it ad nauseam at this point is because you keep bringing it up like a robot when it has nothing to do with what I'm talking about. At least you sort of answered the question in the last paragraph though. Except you left out exactly why there was a need for WLMI to comprise with the ministry for works that aren't copyrighted to begin with, which was the whole point in my question, but whatever. I'll probably just ask someone from WLMI at some point since you clearly have no answer. --Adamant1 (talk) 14:33, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
- Like if someone wants to upload an image of a monument that's owned by a municipality but the term has supposedly lapse due to its age, what stops them from just uploading the image regardless of there not being an agreement and what will happen if they do? We aren't going to delete the image. There doesn't seem to be a legal basis for the municipality to sue the person outside of copyright infringement. And I can't think of any other reason the agreements need to exist outside of copyright. So I'm just at a lose as to what their purpose is or why we need them to begin with if they really have nothing to do with copyright. --Adamant1 (talk) 12:13, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
File:Sally Hayden at Disruption Network Lab 2020-11-27 (CC Jan Petersmann).jpg[edit]
CC licence was revoked for this photo, see disruptionlab.org/photos#borders-of-fear - "Photos licenced CC BY-SA 4.0 except photos of Sally Hayden." Vodiak Diskobox (talk) 09:29, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
File:Xpertdoc EN.png[edit]
Wrong format - the company used a SVG one to their Wikipedia page. Aapellerin (talk) 18:00, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
File:Xpertdoc EN.png[edit]
This file was initially tagged by Johnj1995 as Speedy (SD) and the most recent rationale was: G10 Previously kept in a DR. Yann (talk) 10:18, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
- Keep per the last DR, and I think it's OK per COM:TOO Canada. Not the same as their historical SVG file. Relevant per w:Xpertdoc. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:28, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
File:Xpertdoc Logo FR.png[edit]
Outdated logo - the company added their newest one to their Wikipedia page. Aapellerin (talk) 17:37, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. Ruthven (msg) 15:24, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
File:Xpertdoc Logo FR.png[edit]
This file was initially tagged by Johnj1995 as Speedy (SD) and the most recent rationale was: G10 Previously kept in a DR. Yann (talk) 10:18, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
File:Xpertdoc FR.svg[edit]
Outdated logo - the company added their newest one to their Wikipedia page. Aapellerin (talk) 17:38, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. Ruthven (msg) 15:24, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
File:Xpertdoc FR.svg[edit]
This file was initially tagged by Johnj1995 as Speedy (SD) and the most recent rationale was: G10 Previously kept in a DR. Yann (talk) 10:19, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
- Keep per the last DR, and I think it's OK per COM:TOO Canada. Relevant per w:Xpertdoc. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:27, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
File:Prince Bernhard Eindhoven.jpg[edit]
File is incorrectly licenced at the source. Photo is copyright by A van Beurden, who died in 1997. See ticket:2023102310004819 Mbch331 (talk) 10:21, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
File:Adon.png[edit]
This file was initially tagged by Johnj1995 as Speedy (SD) and the most recent rationale was: G10 In use. Yann (talk) 10:34, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
- I don't see why it is G10. This is the sign of a certain cryptocurrency, see https://adonis.network/ - seems to be more or less notable. But I don't know if it might be copyrighted or not. Andrei Romanenko (talk) 07:37, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
File:Shahed University of Tehran.png[edit]
This file was initially tagged by HeminKurdistan as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: Logo Quite borderline regarding the complexity, and in use. Regular DR is better. Yann (talk) 12:23, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Sjelod Rtep (talk · contribs)[edit]
Not own works. May be in the public domain, but proper date, source, and author must be provided.
- File:Vlastimil Drtina (1913-1990).jpg
- File:Karel Červený (1895-1986).jpg
- File:Dagmar Bartáková (1943-1983).jpg
- File:Zdenka Schubertová (1929–2009).jpg
- File:Jaroslav Hodek (1905-1967).jpg
- File:Radoslav Hobza (1932-2019).jpg
- File:Farní úřad Církve československé husitské v Praze-Michli.jpg
- File:Miloň Zemen (1923–1986).jpg
- File:Václav Mikulecký (1921-1973).jpg
- File:Jaroslav Halbhuber-Habr 1887-1972.jpg
- File:Josef Špak 1929-2016.jpg
- File:Milan Salajka 1928-2012.jpg
- File:Eva Mikulecká (duchovní).jpg
- File:Ludvík Fuček (1921-2004).jpg
- File:Kubíková Jiřina (1930-2020).jpg
- File:Josef Farský 1878-1951.jpg
- File:Mistr Jan Hus - desková malba Eduarda Neumanna.jpg
- File:Eduard Neumann (1862-1937).jpg
- File:Jaroslav Fiedler (1913–1992).jpg
- File:Ladislav Čapek (1876-1954).jpg
- File:Ebertová Anežka Prof.jpg
- File:Josef Čihák (kněz).jpg
- File:Jan Křinecký.jpg
- File:Josef Mojžíš (1908-1996).jpg
- File:Alois Tuháček (1883-1945).jpg
- File:Jaroslav Reitmeier (1910-1983).jpg
- File:Leopold Fischer (1904-1975).jpg
- File:Jiří Kocan (1899-1971).jpg
- File:Karel Čepek (1910-1980).jpg
- File:Josef Kracík (1914-1984).jpg
- File:Sochr Pavel (kněz).tif
- File:Pavel Bouda (1896-1977).jpg
- File:Miloš Lochman (kněz).jpg
Yann (talk) 12:32, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
- Keep All but possibly two meet "PD-Czechoslovakia-anon", the cutoff is 1973. --RAN (talk) 20:52, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
File:Bob Kevoian 2013.jpg[edit]
Likely to be Flickrwashing. That's not the only picture with exif crediting " Brenda Staples Photography" Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Luis Scola, while some other files credited other sources Commons:Deletion requests/File:Britanny Kelly LPGA Futures Tour (6889832409).jpg QTHCCAN (talk) 13:37, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
- Comment The Flickr account was open open 2007 and has nearly 110K images. It might have images they don't have the rights, but I wouldn't call it Flickrwahsing. The about page states "Towne Post Network, Inc. is a collection of hyperlocal magazines around the United States." and one can find their website https://townepost.com/ and see it is a publishing house with a huge amount of magazines. It is quite plausible Brenda Staples works as a freelance photographer for them. All that being said, I cannot judge if they have an agreement with the photographers to release their work under CC-BY, so probably it is reasonble to err on the safe side and delete it. Günther Frager (talk) 23:13, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
File:NewUpGradLogo.png[edit]
COM:SPAM, one of several promo images uploaded by presumed company rep, no use Gnomingstuff (talk) 13:58, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
- Keep per my comment on Commons:Deletion requests/File:Upgradlogo.png. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:24, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
File:Upgradlogo.png[edit]
non free logo 1997kB (talk) 16:56, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
Kept: Under TOO; used on a plausible draft. --Pi.1415926535 (talk) 20:16, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
File:Upgradlogo.png[edit]
COM:SPAM, one of several promo images uploaded by presumed company rep, no use (the "plausible draft" mentioned has since been deleted) Gnomingstuff (talk) 13:59, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
- Keep Seems notable enough to be plausibly useful even if there wasn't enough independent coverage of the company to satisfy Wikipedians. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:23, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
File:Porus, Lahore Army Museum.jpg[edit]
This file was initially tagged by LittleWink as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: see link DMacks (talk) 14:22, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
Image is from a website that claims copyright, but this looks like a sculpture on fairly permanent public display in Lahore. {{FoP-Pakistan}}? DMacks (talk) 14:24, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
File:Kofferanhänger.pbair (cropped).JPG[edit]
Derivative work. Fair use. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 14:48, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
File:Valerie Blandin.jpg[edit]
Copyrighted work ("ARTICLE 6 : Propriété intellectuelle" on https://www.francefrais.fr/conditions-generales-utilisation) Cody escouade delta (d) 15:25, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
- Bonjour, cette photo n'est pas présente sur le site elle vient de moi, d'autres ont été utilisé par France frais IrSkell69 (talk) 14:16, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
- And so why is the source https://www.francefrais.fr/news/226-convention-2023 if it's not from this website? --Cody escouade delta (d) 15:03, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
File:Logo Maîtres laitiers du cotentin.jpg[edit]
Copyrighted work (https://www.maitres-laitiers.fr/fr/mentions-legales) Cody escouade delta (d) 15:28, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
File:Logo ISC.jpg[edit]
logo of a museum in Iceland with no proof that the designer gave permission to put CC license on it Steinninn ♨ 15:39, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
File:Selatalningin mikla 2015.jpg[edit]
uses the logo of a museum in Iceland with no proof that the designer gave permission to put CC license on it Steinninn ♨ 15:40, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
File:Selatalning-SelaseturIslands.png[edit]
logo of a museum in Iceland with no proof that the designer gave permission to put CC license on it Steinninn ♨ 15:41, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
File:Logotyp akcji "Swój do swego po swoje".jpg[edit]
Published elsewhere (https://bazafirm.swojak.org/), not Own work. But maybe below ToO? Ankry (talk) 15:58, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
- Skorygowano znacznik na
This logo image consists only of simple geometric shapes or text. It does not meet the threshold of originality needed for copyright protection, and is therefore in the public domain. Although it is free of copyright restrictions, this image may still be subject to other restrictions. See WP:PD § Fonts and typefaces or Template talk:PD-textlogo for more information.
|
>> zgodnie z sugestią administratora. Skorhex (talk) 14:11, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
File:Iron Swords 141023 Azrieli Bring Them Home.jpg[edit]
Derivative work of a billboard, containing copyrighted images A1Cafel (talk) 16:26, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
- Keep. Per COM:DM. The copyright owners of each photo is different therefore de minimis applies her. -- Geagea (talk) 19:48, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
- Keep. Per COM:DM. I agree with Geagea. Hanay (talk) 17:11, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
File:Back Paraguay Flag.png[edit]
Duplicate of File:Flag of Paraguay (reverse).svg. Fry1989 eh? 16:56, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
Files found with Special:Search/insource:"vimeo.com/staygoldkid"[edit]
Screenshots from videos from Vimeo user staygoldkid that is in real life Lorenzo Pace, a director of photography according to his linked website. The videos have a CC-BY license in Vimeo, but it is unlikely Pace's holds the copyright of them as they are clearly work for hire. The videos where produced for Vogue magazine, so they or its published are likely to rights holders. The Vimeo user also has other videos with bogus CC-BY license that includes advertisements for FUR (a deodorant), New Chapter Gummies, Lauren Underwood (political campaign), etc.
- File:Lily Collins Met Gala 2023.jpg
- File:Billie Eilish Met Gala 2023.jpg
- File:Lily Collins Met Gala 2023 2.jpg
- File:Yara Shahidi Met Gala 2023 2.jpg
- File:Yara Shahidi Met Gala 2023.jpg
- File:Vogue x Cartier - Met Gala.jpg
Günther Frager (talk) 17:58, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
File:WF78.jpg[edit]
This is not own work, it is found on the internet on various places, for instance a colored vesion on https://padresteve.com/tag/battle-of-leyte-gulf/ (search for Heavy Cruiser Atago). According to TinEye that source dates from 2014, a few years before the upload on Commons. If this is indeed en:Japanese cruiser Atago, this ship sank in 1944, so the file is still copyrighted, as it is unknown when it was originally published. The file can be safely undeleted in 1944+121 = 2065. Can perhaps be kept if the photo is made by a US navy officer, but evidence for that is missing. Ellywa (talk) 20:20, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
File:AK-47 Users.png[edit]
A better version was uploaded under a different name, this file is redundant TruncateVirus99 (talk) 21:11, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
- TruncateVirus99, link the "better version," please. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:31, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
- File:AK47map.svg TruncateVirus99 (talk) 00:15, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
- It was uploaded 10 years earlier and has different information, so I fail to see the redundancy. I'd tend to Keep both. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:37, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
- File:AK47map.svg TruncateVirus99 (talk) 00:15, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
Works by Ursula von Rydingsvard[edit]
- File:URODA.jpg
- File:UTSW Ursula.jpg
- File:"Bronze bowl with lace" by Ursula von Rydingsvard - geograph.org.uk - 4213230.jpg
- File:"Droga" by Ursula von Rydingsvard - geograph.org.uk - 4213227.jpg
Non-free content, derivative works, no FoP and out of bounds of FoP. All images contain copyrighted sculpture by a living artist (Urusula von Rydingsvard), photographed in the United States (no FoP) and in the United Kingdom at a temporary exhibition (out of bounds of FoP). Images 1 and 2 were made in the United States. Images 4 and 5 were made in the United Kingdom at the Yorkshire Sculpture Park during a temporary exhibition. Two sculptures (1, 2) by von Rydingsvard are in the sculpture park's permanent collection, and photographs of those works in situ in Yorkshire should be kept (1, 2, not included in this request). --19h00s (talk) 21:13, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
Files in Category:Clemente Domínguez y Gómez[edit]
- File:Bishop Clemente Domínguez y Gómez.jpg
- File:Pope Gregory XVII (4).jpg
- File:Pope-Gregory-XVII.jpg
All of these are claimed to be from the 1970s and tagged with {{PD-Spain-photo}}, but they were not free in the US as of the URAA date of 1996, so they have had their copyrights restored. Related DRs:
- Commons:Deletion requests/File:San Gregorio XVII.jpg
- Commons:Deletion requests/File:Pope Gregory XVII (3).jpg
—holly {chat} 21:15, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination. The copyright protection for simple photos is 25 years in Spain, thus anything published after 1971 has its copyrighted restored in the US (unless published simultaneously). Günther Frager (talk) 22:37, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
File:Matt Frumin DC Bike Lane Event.png[edit]
The stated license is not valid. While much of Tom William's work is part of the Roll Call collection, this work is not from there, and there is no evidence it is available under a PD license. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 21:32, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
File:Christopher Blazejewski.jpg[edit]
The license information quoted does not meet the standards given at Commons:Licensing#Acceptable licenses. Acceptable licenses must explicitly give certain rights as given there. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 21:36, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Segagustin (talk · contribs)[edit]
Images taken from Paraguay government pages or their official Facebook page. The sources don't state the images have a CC-BY license and COM:PARAGUAY doesn't say anything about works made by states employees. The only mention is the usual laws, judicial documents, and news.
- File:Horacio Cartes Retrato Oficial (cropped).jpg
- File:Horacio Cartes Retrato Oficial.jpg
- File:Santi Peña Retrato Oficial (cropped2).jpg
- File:Santi Peña Retrato Oficial (cropped).jpg
- File:Santi Peña Retrato Oficial.jpg
- File:Santi Peña Foto Oficial.jpg
Günther Frager (talk) 21:38, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
File:Iraq National Football Team Shirt Badge.png[edit]
not free in iraq أيوب (talk) 21:49, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
File:Brigitte Bardot, 1953 (36209530070).jpg[edit]
The metadata states this images belongs to the archives of Patrick Morin, a French photographer who died in 2002 [5]. Since it was taken, in France by a French photographer and no information of first US publication is given. There is no reason to assume this image is still protected by copyright in France. We can undelete it in 2073. Günther Frager (talk) 21:51, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
Files in Category:Graffiti in Kharkiv[edit]
No commercial Freedom of Panorama in Ukraine
- File:KharkovQueenGraffiti01.JPG
- File:KharkovQueenGraffiti02.JPG
- File:KharkovQueenGraffiti04.JPG
- File:KharkovQueenGraffiti05.JPG
- File:KharkovQueenGraffiti06.JPG
- File:KharkovQueenGraffiti07.JPG
- File:M.Monro Graffiti VizuIMG 3673.JPG
- File:Nagornyy, Kharkov, Kharkovskaya oblast', Ukraine - panoramio (7).jpg
- File:Novi Budynky (Kharkiv) 14.JPG
- File:Novi Budynky (Kharkiv) 7.JPG
- File:Petro&Volodia.jpg
- File:Taras Shevchenko and Andrey Shevchenko on graffiti.jpg
- File:Women with Mural on Street - Kharkiv (Kharkov) - Ukraine (43143858255).jpg
- File:Yuryivska 7, Kharkiv 4.jpg
- File:БелкаСтрелка VizuIMG 3703.JPG
- File:Графіті Місце, де час уповільнює свій хід 02.jpg
- File:Графіті Місце, де час уповільнює свій хід 03.jpg
- File:Графіті Місце, де час уповільнює свій хід 04.jpg
- File:Графіті Місце, де час уповільнює свій хід 05.jpg
- File:Графіті Місце, де час уповільнює свій хід 06.jpg
- File:Графіті Місце, де час уповільнює свій хід 07.jpg
- File:Граффити на старом доме - panoramio.jpg
- File:Приватна лікарня — будинок, в якому в 1905 році знаходилася підпільна явка харківських більшовиків 03.jpg
- File:ПушкинРулит Graffiti VizuIMG 3690.JPG
- File:Пушкинская 67 Ф.Меркюри sun VizuIMG 3234.JPG
- File:Україна, Харків, Белгородській узвіз 5 фото 1.JPG
- File:Харьк.наб.л.8 Д.Хармс VizuIMG 3678.JPG
- File:Харьк.наб.л.8 Кинг Конг VizuIMG 3704.JPG
- File:Харьк.наб.л.8 ЛенинТолстой VizuIMG 3677.JPG
- File:Харьк.наб.л.8 Маяковский Брик VizuIMG 3692.JPG
- File:Харьк.наб.л.8 Спекулянт VizuIMG 3671.JPG
- File:Харьк.наб.лев.8 Гребенщиков 2010 Vizu.JPG
- File:Чеботарская 29 Олгой Хорхой VizuIMG 4128.JPG
- File:Чигиріна,13.Харків.jpg
QazyQazyQazaqstan (talk) 22:03, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
- Good afternoon, please tell me what is wrong with the photo "Приватна лікарня — будинок, в якому в 1905 році знаходилася підпільна явка харківських більшовиків 03.jpg"? This house is over 100 years old, can the doorknob still be copyrighted? Тітаренко Михайло (talk) 12:20, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
- Keep file:Приватна лікарня — будинок, в якому в 1905 році знаходилася підпільна явка харківських більшовиків 03.jpg. And template:Non-free graffiti for other. Lesless (talk) 14:34, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
- That one file was an accident, the others are not free, and the non-free grafitti tag notes that such files can be deleted.--QazyQazyQazaqstan (talk) 20:48, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
- Да конечно) Category:Non-free graffiti - сколько файлов в категории? Там весь Бэнкси, например. И никто это не удаляет. Lesless (talk) 07:33, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
- That one file was an accident, the others are not free, and the non-free grafitti tag notes that such files can be deleted.--QazyQazyQazaqstan (talk) 20:48, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
- Keep file:Приватна лікарня — будинок, в якому в 1905 році знаходилася підпільна явка харківських більшовиків 03.jpg. And template:Non-free graffiti for other. Lesless (talk) 14:34, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
- Keep some as there are different files with different statuses:
- Two of them, File:Приватна лікарня — будинок, в якому в 1905 році знаходилася підпільна явка харківських більшовиків 03.jpg and File:Чигиріна,13.Харків.jpg, obviously depict architecture spoiled by the graffiti. The graffiti is clearly not the main focus (it is on the doorknob and the building respectively), the graffiti is not even any artistic and is basically an eyesore.
- Then some files depict actual graffiti and some depict purpose-made murals. Those that do depict graffiti should be kept per COM:GRAFFITI, for example, File:Novi Budynky (Kharkiv) 14.JPG (non-creative tags on a fence) or File:Petro&Volodia.jpg (political stamp which is neither legal nor creative, nor copyrightable by its nature). On the other hand, there are some that depict not graffiti but murals, e.g. File:Yuryivska 7, Kharkiv 4.jpg (its authors are notable artists Arsek and Erase), and those are likely copyrighted
File:Brigitte Bardot and Pope.jpg[edit]
Image taken in Italy in 1995. It is in the public domain in Italy, but it is not in the United States due to Berne Convention. Günther Frager (talk) 22:07, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
File:Alluri Harish.jpg[edit]
Possible copyvio: the uploader is not the author, as per the metadata CoffeeEngineer (talk) 22:18, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
File:Antonee Robinson WC2022.jpg[edit]
repeated, there's a similar image: File:2022 FIFA World Cup England 0-0 USA - Antonee Robinson.jpg M30UTH (talk) 22:45, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
File:Antonee Robinson WC2022 (cropped).jpg[edit]
crop of the repeated image of File:2022 FIFA World Cup England 0-0 USA - Antonee Robinson.jpg M30UTH (talk) 22:46, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
File:Denník Venouška Dolejše 1911 inzerát Humoristické listy.jpg[edit]
Author of illustration is noted as J. LADA, ie Josef Lada, who died in 1957. Undelete in 2028. Gumruch (talk) 23:11, 23 October 2023 (UTC)