Commons:Deletion requests/2023/10/24

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
23 October 2023
25 October 2023
Deletion requests on 24 October 2023

October 24[edit]

File:Hans Friessen.jpg[edit]

Das Foto ist mit Sicherheit nicht von 2017. In diesem Jahr war der Mann bereits fast 70 Jahre alt. Ich sehe auch keine Freigabe für das Bild auf der angegebenen Webseite: https://www.goal.com/es-mx/noticias/hans-friessen-el-mexicano-mas-aleman-en-chivas/gxnptl6w81bf1a36fuy4rrzn8 . Bitte prüfen. Graf Foto (talk) 07:06, 24 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Anonymous works are in public domain until the author or the owner of the rights are identified. / 1996-2018 Art. 153. After an intensive research no author could be identified for this work. Also established sites use this photo without indicating any author.
Oalexander (talk) 06:51, 27 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Escorihuela Colecció 26 de coloquis valencians Primer quart.djvu[edit]

Incomplete scan, duplicated from File:Escorihuela Col·lecció de col·loquis valencians Primer quart.djvu TaronjaSatsuma (talk) 07:25, 24 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:BORA 80k.png[edit]

no permission, uploaded by company, protected logo Hoyanova (talk) 08:09, 24 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:零企音樂公司.png[edit]

This file was initially tagged by Shizhao as no permission (No permission since). COM:TOO? King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:24, 24 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Helsinki Cathedral illuminated at Lux Helsinki 2020.jpg[edit]

probalby unlawful for publication ("other works of art"), see COM:FOP Finland Mateus2019 (talk) 09:50, 24 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Talonheft für die Chemnitzer Verkehrs-Aktiengesellschaft 1990.jpg[edit]

Copyvio: Derivative work (book or brochure cover), no CC licensing 2003:C0:8F22:B600:3DA1:3DBB:50F4:A685 12:10, 24 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Saw the ticket too late. However, since many of the other uploads by this user do not have a sufficient permission or are derivative work from somewhere, might as well have this re-checked. --2003:C0:8F22:B600:3DA1:3DBB:50F4:A685 12:14, 24 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Some files in Anime television series logos[edit]

I think these files violate copyright, but not "clear," and some pictures may require discussion so I am filing a request to remove these files here. I don't think the copyright mark marked in the file is correct, and there isn't an alternative in Commons available. Most of them use PD-textlogo, but in my opinion, there are not simple shapes in the files I listed, so it is not applicable. There are also a few files that use CC BY-SA licenses, but these licenses should be issued by the holders of the images, and I have seen no evidence that the copyright license is correct. Don't know File:فينلاند ساجا.png is should using Japan rules, but I don't think this one is pd-textlogo. --LaMagiaaa (talk) 13:11, 24 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  •  Delete The user who almost uploaded the logos is not even Japanese (he's from Spain), so perhaps he doesn't have a background knowledge about the legal aspect of these logos, he has simply dedicated himself to uploading (even crossing over on several occasions into copyright violations). Because this case is too complex, and with further clarification accord to COM:TOO Japan, I opt for the deletion. Taichi (talk) 19:23, 2 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Genesis-owusu-elsewhere-brookyln-2023-1-cropped.jpg[edit]

The rotation bot was taking too long to rotate the image, so I created the correctly rotated image with CropTool which is now being used. This version is therefore an uneccesary duplication, so should be deleted. Neuroxic (talk) 13:39, 24 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Delete as redundant. For reference, the other version that supersedes this one is File:Genesis-owusu-elsewhere-brookyln-2023-1-cropped-2.jpg. --bjh21 (talk) 22:35, 4 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:2017-06-19 Bayerische Staatsmedaille Innere Sicherheit IMG 2729.JPG[edit]

Derivative work of copyrighted medal. See Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Germany  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 14:43, 24 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Delete per nomination. Medal was started in 2013. Abzeronow (talk) 19:57, 28 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
 Keep The medal is basically the Bavarian police star plus some lettering. Both the police star and the Bavarian coat of arms are quite old and the whole composition appears to be below COM:TOO Germany for me. It should also be below COM:TOO USA. --Rosenzweig τ 19:54, 31 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Arnold Henry Wagner.jpg[edit]

Image could not be uploader's own. No source information provided.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 15:03, 24 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  •  Keep Now fixed, which you can do instead of nominating for deletion. --RAN (talk) 21:24, 24 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • "Scan from the original work" does not meet the minimum criteria for showing that a work is free. If this image was taken in 1929, it does not meet the date requirements for {{PD-US-expired}}. We need to have a clear source, showing that it was published without a copyright notice, or that the copyright was not renewed. "No source information provided" remains a valid reason for deletion. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 23:28, 24 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Presidential Flag.png[edit]

Duplicate of File:Flag of CANU.svg. Fry1989 eh? 15:25, 24 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Files in Category:PD Switzerland (Individuality)[edit]

See also Commons:Deletion requests/PD-Switzerland-photo Cases which was closed as deleted by me. - Due to a 2020 change in Swiss copyright law, photos of three-dimensional objects that have no individual character, previously not protected by copyright at all, are now protected for 50 years after creation. For more information, see the paragraph Non-individual photographs in COM:TOO Switzerland. The change is retroactive, though existing uses stay legal. This means that legally we could still use these - only! - on Commons and in Wikipedia articles where they were in use prior to April 1, 2020, but new uses - in Wikipedia as well as externally - would require permission by the copyright owner. As the amended legacy template {{PD-Switzerland-photo}} says, "This photograph will therefore have to be deleted as its license is not compatible with the Wikimedia Commons licensing policy" (they're no longer freely re-usable). There is a new template {{PD-Switzerland-photo-non-individual-50-years}} that can be used for photos without individual character that are older than 50 years, but these photos are all too new for that. If the photos are deleted, {{PD-Switzerland-photo}} can be deleted too, as it then will be no longer in use.

Gestumblindi (talk) 15:25, 24 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The coins should remain kept as they are scans. I'm still against also the other cases, but if the community stays in favor for delteing the pics then ok.--Sanandros (talk) 19:53, 24 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't like this action either, but I've removed and replaced my pictures in the articles. So the stuff on the list that I uploaded can go. Pechristener (talk) 22:39, 24 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Sanandros: If it can really be assumed that the coin images are mere scans, I wouldn't disagree with keeping them and replacing the license with {{PD-Scan}}. But I'm not sure, so adding a comment to the relevant files above and leaving for the closing admin to decide. But File:Senonesstater.jpeg, File:Venetistater1.jpeg, and File:Vericastater.jpeg look to three-dimensional to be a scan, in my opinion. Gestumblindi (talk) 14:36, 25 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
We can check if scan is apropriate in another DR. But the individual crativtiy is for me too little with these coins.--Sanandros (talk) 16:42, 25 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't see how a coin could be anything else but a three-dimensional object ? (Art. 2 COPA : "Photographic depictions and depictions of three-dimensional objects produced by a process similar to that of photography are considered works, even if they do not have individual character"). Omnilaika02 (talk) 19:18, 25 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Agree, but it doesn't matter, because coins are "means of payment". Article 5 b clearly says that coins are not copyrighted! --Saippuakauppias (talk) 21:05, 27 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Saippuakauppias: (first, so you have basically copied my comments for coins above, but that's fine) The concerns are not about copyright for the coins themselves (these would be far too old for copyright anyway, even disregarding Article 5 b) but the depictions of the coins. As the coins aren't completely flat, Omnilaika02 argues that the images depict 3D objects and therefore, as photos, enjoy the new protection of 50 years for non-individual photographs of 3D objects (the copyright status of the object itself is irrelevant). Sanandros on the other hand argues that these are not photos, but mere scans, despite the 3D elements of the coins. Gestumblindi (talk) 10:37, 28 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm sorry, but I don't get the "mere scan" argument. I don't see how a coin could be 2 dimensional? Especially old, engraved coins.
@Saippuakauppias art. 5 COPA only apply to swiss means of payment. And still, taking a picture of an actual, CHF 5 coin would still create a copyright by the photographer. Omnilaika02 (talk) 12:52, 28 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I suppose that Sanandros believes that these coins were not actually photographed, but placed on a (flat bed) scanner und thus scanned merely mechanically, without involving the skill of a photographer which would create the protection for non-individual photographs. But how to prove this, I wonder? If we apply COM:PCP, maybe we should rather delete the coin images, too. Gestumblindi (talk) 12:56, 28 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
What license banner should be used then? I doubt those picture were obtained using a flatbed scanner though… PCP should be applied. Omnilaika02 (talk) 13:11, 28 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If it is a flatbed scan, I would use {{PD-scan}}, as the coins themselves are all very old and PD. But there's the "if"... Gestumblindi (talk) 13:20, 28 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you for doing this deletion request. I also manually checked the files to "save" what could be saved: we are looking at the remaining ones here, and we have no other choice. Omnilaika02 (talk) 19:19, 25 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You see it out of the picture, if someboy would use a camera you'd see shadows on the sides, even with multiple flashes. Older pics could be done with a camera but File:Zurich, Schilling 1640.jpeg is for sure a scan.--Sanandros (talk) 19:24, 28 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If it looks like a scan, it is a scan. Because all coins are (relatively) flat. I would argue, that all flat objects, if they are not taken as in a 3D perspective, they fall under the "scan" argument. Saippuakauppias (talk) 17:00, 29 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
After some thoughts and review, I can get behind that opinion. {{PD-scan}} exists for a reason. Omnilaika02 (talk) 19:23, 29 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Coins aren't protected. Scans aren't protected. These scans of coins aren't protected. Go back through and remove all these deletion templates. — LlywelynII 15:11, 9 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If have no problem if the admin processing this request decides that the few images in the list above (all already marked with a comment) which are of coins (it's of course clear that these very old coins themselves aren't protected) can be considered scans or scan-like enough to have no protection *as photos* and keeps them with {{PD-Scan}}. This applies only to the coin photographs/scans, however. Gestumblindi (talk) 19:19, 9 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Files in Category:Postcards in the Boston Public Library[edit]

Totally pointless lower quality duplicates of already exiting images.

Adamant1 (talk) 16:12, 24 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Jose Luis Bustamante y Rivero.png[edit]

This file was initially tagged by Yann as no license (No license since). This is a circa 1940s photograph from Peru. It looks like there is a credit to the photographer but it's not legible at source either. If it could find out who the photographer was, we could determine the copyright status of this photograph. Abzeronow (talk) 16:12, 24 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Comment Former president of Peru, and if the photo was taken in the 1940s, then it is in the public domain in Peru as photographs used to have 20 years protection. The law changed in 1996, so all photos prior to 1976 are safe. However, I would suggest  Delete as File:Bustmante y Rivero.jpg is the same image with better quality (although still bad). Günther Frager (talk) 21:20, 24 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Keep PD-Peru and USA and the other version is a different filetype. --RAN (talk) 21:31, 24 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Weak delete License OK, but smaller duplicate. Yann (talk) 00:07, 25 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Yeah, license seems OK, and I'm fine with keeping or with redirecting. Abzeronow (talk) 15:35, 25 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Featured Article Recommendation and Optimization System logo RGB.svg[edit]

Author's demand manȷıro💬 16:54, 24 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Featured Article Recommendation and Optimization System logo black.svg[edit]

Author's demand manȷıro💬 16:54, 24 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:N660QX KPAE.jpg[edit]

photo is copyrighted by Nick Dean, no proof of CC Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 at given source PizzaKing13 (talk) 17:43, 24 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Not sure if this counts but Nick Dean has another image of another aircraft at this link with the appropriate license: [1] Idmsdmsalescaleneiviq (talk) 17:47, 24 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Wait. Nick Dean has a Flickr page and the photo is uploaded there as well. I asked whether he wishes to have this photo as CC-BY-SA or remain all rights reserved, and am waiting for a reply. S5A-0043Talk 08:01, 25 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Files in Category:Bruder Klaus (Bern)[edit]

Interiors of buildings are not in the public domain per FOP Switzerland, the Churches architect was Hermann Baur, who died in 1980. So delete and undelete in 2051 as Switzerland counts with a standard of life plus 70 years.Paradise Chronicle (talk)

Paradise Chronicle (talk) 18:26, 24 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Files uploaded by Navrátilová Barbora (talk · contribs)[edit]

All files claimed to be own work although there are artworks by other living people (from ivanzalesky.eu etc), obvious printscreens and so on. Should be confirmed via VTRS or deleted en bloc fulfilling the precautionary principle.

Ukázky děl akademického sochaře Ivana Záleského zveřejňuji na stránkách wikipedie jako jeho dcera - pověřená editací, zveřejňováním informací v článku autora. Výtvarník Jiří Klösel je vůči mé osobě v přátelském vztahu a pomáhám s editací obrázků a zveřejňováním informací v jeho článku. Barbora Navrátilová — Preceding unsigned comment added by Navrátilová Barbora (talk • contribs) 18:06, 4 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have been authorized by my father, the sculptor Ivan Záleský, to edit his article, to release the images of his masterpieces as well as to publish any valuable and valid infornation regarding his personality and work. The painter Jiří Klösel has authorized me to release the images of his work, as being a close friend, as well as to help him to edit his article on the wiki website. Barbora Navrátilová — Preceding unsigned comment added by Navrátilová Barbora (talk • contribs) 18:17, 4 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Gumruch (talk) 18:28, 24 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There's been several emails received from the uploader regarding the nominated files. Please hold off deletion before the ticket can be settled. Thank you! Best, Martin Urbanec (talk) 20:06, 28 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Files by Cobyrne09 and Psheehan22[edit]

1979 photograph without author (assuming that the 2 separate uploaders are not the authors) --BadzilBot (talk) 19:58, 24 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Flag of Virginia (3-2).svg[edit]

Superceded by File:Flag of Virginia.svg, which is already 3x2 ratio. Patrick Neil, oѺ∞/Talk 20:24, 24 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Files in Category:Katholische Kirche St. Johannes der Täufer (Wängi)[edit]

FOP Switzerland does not apply for interior places. It is generally held that the interior of a church cannot be depicted under Article 27. The church's architect was Fritz Metzger who died in 1973 and Switzerland has a standard of life plus 70 years. I suggest to delete now and undelete in 2044.

Paradise Chronicle (talk) 21:00, 24 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


I would suggest to keep until we can clarify the relevant section of the law. Whether FOP applies for public indoor places is disputed even among commentaries, as the reference on FOP Switzerland suggests. We should look for or wait for a court decision on this subject. --PaterMcFly (talk) 19:21, 30 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Files in Category:Don-Bosco-Kirche, Basel[edit]

FOP Switzerland does not apply for interior places. It is generally held that the interior of a church cannot be depicted under Article 27. The church's architect was Hermann Baur who died in 1980 and Switzerland has a standard of life plus 70 years. I suggest to delete now and undelete in 2051.

Paradise Chronicle (talk) 21:05, 24 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


  • Against deletion, there are plenty of interior pictures of other churches and cathedrals without any problems. I had asked about photographing Don Bosco Church at that time and was granted permission by the local custodian. -- CdaMVvWgS (talk) 10:15, 27 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    The interior of churches is not permitted if it violates copyright. See also COM:CV. Per the Commons licensing policy, Wikimedia Commons accepts only free content, that is, images and other media files that can be used by anyone, anytime, for any purpose. Commons also does not host “fair use” copies of non-free content ... You could approach the VRT team and send them a valid permission following which the files can be undeleted. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 13:15, 27 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Z rodnaha zahonu (1931).pdf[edit]

not original, facsimile edition with foreword. Original uploader request Plaga med (talk) 21:54, 24 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  •  Comment COM:INUSE. Do you have an argument that there's a copyright issue with the foreward? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:51, 25 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    The book was republished in Minsk, 1993 by Belarusian Catholic Community (info on the last page), 50 years not passed from this date and the rights can be reserved by the community or someone there, I guess. The author of foreward is A. V. Stankievič, who died in 4 december 1949 in USSR, so there is no copyright for him. Plaga med (talk) 08:22, 7 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I can't believe that publishing a facsimile edition produces a new copyright. If that were true, facsimile editions of music by 18th-century composers like Handel would suddenly be copyrighted by any publishers that put out facsimile editions, and that is not true. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:20, 8 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    There is a special preface written for the facsimile on the pages 2-5. Gleb Leo (talk) 17:48, 8 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Gleb Leo, Plaga med stated above that there is no copyright for the preface writer because he died in 1949. Do you have a reason to dispute that? Or are you talking about something separate from the forward Plaga med discussed? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:39, 8 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Plaga med said about pages 12-23 of the file. Gleb Leo (talk) 18:57, 8 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Gleb Leo is right, I was confused, because there are 2 prefaces. And the first one is written by "A. B." (А. Б.) and I don't know who it is. Probably this person has copyright for this. Plaga med (talk) 22:09, 8 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Attack-on-Titan pencil case A 20180101 sample (cropped).jpg[edit]

Derivative work of copyrighted logo Di (they-them) (talk) 22:35, 24 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It is a heraldic embroidery of a weapon.--Blockhaj (talk) 22:56, 24 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:지유우노츄바사.png[edit]

This logo is from the anime Attack on Titan and is above the threshold of originality Di (they-them) (talk) 22:37, 24 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Chris Hadfield Rocket Factory sign.jpg[edit]

Dishonestly photoshopped image uploaded as part of prank/hoax -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 23:22, 24 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ha. Looks like I’ve been had. No objections from me. Adeletron 3030 (talk) 23:30, 24 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ooligan (talk) 08:47, 10 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Yes. The "Daniel Steelman" Flickr account is likely a sockpuppet account of (since indef blocked) User:Raphael.concorde, and if not is a co-conspirator in the hoax. The "Daniel Steelman" Flickr account is now on Commons blacklist of bad Flickr accounts. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 14:15, 10 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:DieCastModelsWIKI1.jpg[edit]

Derivative work of Boeing property QazyQazyQazaqstan (talk) 23:47, 24 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm a bit puzzled by the rational, It's a photograph of a model of a Boeing aircraft. A photograph of a Boeing aircraft would usually be acceptable here (not usually considered a Derivative work) why would a photograph of a model have this problem? BTW this image is in use on various Wikipedia and has been for some time Oxyman (talk) 11:25, 25 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Matryoshka doll set.jpg[edit]

Derivative work, paint is not simple geometry QazyQazyQazaqstan (talk) 23:48, 24 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Matryoshka dolls in Budapest.jpg[edit]

Derivative work, see Commons:TOYS QazyQazyQazaqstan (talk) 23:48, 24 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Probably too much of a closeup to be de minimis, but you never seem to even consider the possibility of an overview being de minimis, by analogy with a view of an entire neighborhood in a city that's full of copyrighted modern buildings. Please start considering this possibility. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:46, 25 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • I considered and rejected because it would be very easy to zoom in and crop on one copyrighted part and then a forger use it to make illegal copy.--QazyQazyQazaqstan (talk) 11:50, 25 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • That's usually true of panoramas of cities that are kept as de minimis, too. Whenever photos of closeups of copyrighted buildings from such panoramas are uploaded, they are deleted when nominated. So I don't think that's a type of reasoning that's supported by deletion decisions on this site, at least in my experience so far, and I hope it never is. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:25, 25 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Sergueï Possad atelier de Matriochkas, Russie (2).jpg[edit]

Derivative work, see Commons:TOYS. Art is too detailed to qualify as simple geometry QazyQazyQazaqstan (talk) 23:51, 24 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Are you sure this figure is creative enough to be copyrightable? These are public works (folklore), which do not have a specific author. Please, look at Matryoshka dolls {{on Wikidata| Q17297}}; this is a public domain copy of Russian dolls (matryoshkas) and therefore not eligible for copyright under Section IV of the Civil Code No. 230-FZ of the Russian Federation of December 18, 2006. Best regards.
Pierre André (talk) 08:18, 25 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Art does not become free just because it is put on a Russian doll. Should we keep the Russian dolls with harry potter picture because they are "folklore" too? Also this doll is not old and the pattern does not look old and does have a specific author (who is unknown because the uploader didn't credit them). Detail here is authored work, these patterns are not folklore.--QazyQazyQazaqstan (talk) 11:44, 25 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Comment Matryoshka dolls as a form are certainly out of copyright, but art painted on their exterior can be copyright. I don't know enough about history of Matryoshka dolls to judge this particular example. However I would think that dolls that look the same or minimally different from dolls from 100 years ago would be unlikely to qualify for a fresh copyright. So I think whether such dolls are DW copyright problems would depend on how much original artistry there is in the painted design. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 20:21, 10 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Saint Petersburg, Russia - Matryoshka dolls1.jpg[edit]

Derivative work, see Commons:TOYS. Art is too detailed to qualify as simple geometry QazyQazyQazaqstan (talk) 23:51, 24 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  •  Comment Probably de minimis. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:44, 25 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Keep Matryoshka is out of copyright in Russia. It has no specific author. Even if this art is to detailed, DM would apply here. Юрий Д.К 08:57, 25 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Doll patterns are not exempt from Russian copyright. You can't just slap a copyrighted pattern on a doll and call it free. An artist spent their very precious long time to make the design and they are entitled to copyright. Please cite to a Russian statute that says painters of dolls are not entitled to copyright protection. The idea of Russian nesting dolls is not copyrighted, but individual patterns painted on them can be copyrighted. For example, Harry Potter nesting dolls are not free.

File:Saint Petersburg, Russia - Matryoshka dolls.jpg[edit]

Derivative work, see Commons:TOYS. Art is too detailed to qualify as simple geometry. If somebody made identical replicas of these and sold them they would be violating the orginal artists copyright QazyQazyQazaqstan (talk) 23:52, 24 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  •  Question De minimis? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:43, 25 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Keep Matryoshka is out of copyright in Russia. It has no specific author. Even if this art is to detailed, DM would apply here. Юрий Д.К 08:58, 25 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Doll patterns are not exempt from Russian copyright. You can't just slap a copyrighted pattern on a doll and call it free. An artist spent their very precious long time to make the design and they are entitled to copyright. Please cite to a Russian statute that says painters of dolls are not entitled to copyright protection. The idea of Russian nesting dolls is not copyrighted, but individual patterns painted on them can be copyrighted. For example, Harry Potter nesting dolls are not free.--QazyQazyQazaqstan (talk) 11:48, 25 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/2023/10/24&oldid=824836425"