Commons:Deletion requests/2023/10/25

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

October 25[edit]

File:Making of Harry Potter, Warner Bros London Studio (Ank Kumar, Infosys) 04.jpg[edit]

Derivative of copyrighted movie clip QazyQazyQazaqstan (talk) 00:00, 25 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Keep COM:CRT/UK says that FOP applies to the interior of museums. And this doesn't seem to qualify as graphic work, because it's not a painting, but a still from a movie. PaterMcFly (talk) 08:42, 25 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
 Delete file entirely or  Keep but blur image for COM:PCP. The image might be copyrighted, meaning that this would be a DW. The rest of the text might be of some use though. S5A-0043Talk 10:53, 25 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Harry Potter by Reilly Brown.jpg[edit]

Fan art is derivative work QazyQazyQazaqstan (talk) 00:01, 25 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:4 matryoshkas compared 3.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 original artists copyright QazyQazyQazaqstan (talk) 00:02, 25 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


File:Figurines et matriochkas (1).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 original artists copyright QazyQazyQazaqstan (talk) 00:02, 25 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  •  Question De minimis? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:23, 25 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • No, too easy to zoom in on and crop out the detail. Based on the business card on the table it looks like the pattern is property of http://tveruzor.net/index.php which clearly puts a lot of work into deesigning and painting the dolls (far exceeding threshold of originality)--QazyQazyQazaqstan (talk) 12:39, 25 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • We don't judge photos by whether someone could zoom in and thereby violate copyright. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:53, 26 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
 Keep Traditional folk craft patterns. -- Herbert Ortner (talk) 14:48, 3 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Figurines et matriochkas (2).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 original artists copyright QazyQazyQazaqstan (talk) 00:03, 25 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Matrioszki 1.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 original artists copyright QazyQazyQazaqstan (talk) 00:03, 25 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


File:Saint Petersburg, Russia (51255351291).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 original artists copyright QazyQazyQazaqstan (talk) 00:03, 25 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  •  Delete While many elements look traditional, also includes significant contemporary artwork, some of which looks to be based on photos (eg the cats) -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 16:09, 1 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Russian Doll .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 original artists copyright QazyQazyQazaqstan (talk) 00:03, 25 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


File:Russian Dolls by TrisT.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 original artists copyright QazyQazyQazaqstan (talk) 00:04, 25 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


File:Matrioshka 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 original artists copyright QazyQazyQazaqstan (talk) 00:04, 25 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


File:2023 Pluszowy miś.jpg[edit]

Commons:TOYS QazyQazyQazaqstan (talk) 00:05, 25 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:I love you (Teddy Bear).JPG[edit]

Commons:TOYS QazyQazyQazaqstan (talk) 00:06, 25 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Durius.jpg[edit]

Commons:TOYS QazyQazyQazaqstan (talk) 00:07, 25 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:2023-03-29 13-53-25 pelucheTDF.jpg[edit]

Commons:TOYS QazyQazyQazaqstan (talk) 00:07, 25 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Oppose De minimis. --ComputerHotline (talk) 06:42, 25 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
 Delete per nom. No way of de minimis. --A1Cafel (talk) 03:12, 28 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Some may argue, that the teddy bear style is quite simple and can be found at many different teddy bear manufacturers --PantheraLeo1359531 😺 (talk) 16:06, 29 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Keep "Teddy Bear" dolls mass produced for aprox 120 years starting in United States, basic doll form long out of copyright. Unless there is a problem with the text on the shirt, I don't see a problem with this image. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 23:42, 31 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Keep Just a plain basic teddy, too generic to provide something individual. -- Herbert Ortner (talk) 14:53, 3 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Amigurumi Spiderman.jpg[edit]

Commons:TOYS Spiderman is not free QazyQazyQazaqstan (talk) 00:08, 25 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


File:Egyptian Spider Man.png[edit]

Spiderman is not a free work QazyQazyQazaqstan (talk) 00:10, 25 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Đặng Thai Mai statue at Hanoi University of Education - front view.jpg[edit]

No FoP in Vietnam QazyQazyQazaqstan (talk) 00:14, 25 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Could you elaborate more on FoP ? What is FoP? The deletion request is not clear to me. Tttrung (talk) 03:18, 25 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think you can keep this image, per {{FoP-Vietnam}} the photo is allowed in Commons. Tttrung (talk) 03:33, 25 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
 Keep @QazyQazyQazaqstan: Vietnam does have FoP, but was revoked since 2023. Because the revocation is not retrospective, all the files uploaded on or before 31 December 2022 is still covered by Vietnamese FoP. --A1Cafel (talk) 03:35, 25 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:WestJet Boeing 737-800 Frozen Livery C-GWSV.jpg[edit]

Frozen character pictures is property of Disney QazyQazyQazaqstan (talk) 00:17, 25 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Alaska Airlines (Make a Wish livery), Boeing 737-490, N706AS.jpg[edit]

Make a wish logo is not free QazyQazyQazaqstan (talk) 00:18, 25 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:C-GWSV Boeing 737-800 Westjet Disney Frozen livery YYZ 251016 (30526582082).jpg[edit]

Frozen characters are property of Disney QazyQazyQazaqstan (talk) 00:19, 25 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep. I think this qualifies as de minimus, as the Frozen characters are barely visible in this photo. Mindmatrix 12:21, 25 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
They can easily be zoomed in on and cropped around.--QazyQazyQazaqstan (talk) 12:29, 25 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Lean  Keep - Tend to agree with Mindmatrix on this one. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 16:16, 1 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Hersheys-cookies-n-creme-candy-bar.jpg[edit]

Per Commons:PACKAGING QazyQazyQazaqstan (talk) 00:38, 25 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  •  Comment I would vote keep for most of the label is simple text, but am unsure about design at bottom right - under or over US TOO? -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 16:21, 1 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Chocolate Lux.jpg[edit]

Per Commons:PACKAGING QazyQazyQazaqstan (talk) 00:39, 25 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Adidas 2010 World Cup stylized English lion shirt.JPG[edit]

Too complex design to be exempt from copyright QazyQazyQazaqstan (talk) 02:51, 25 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  •  Comment Is the English Lion artwork this is based on PD? Is this rendering original enough to qualify for new copyright in UK? -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 16:34, 1 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:GHOPT-Shirt.jpg[edit]

picture on shirt is copyright QazyQazyQazaqstan (talk) 02:51, 25 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Batistuta-Latorre en Boca Jrs. 1991.jpg[edit]

Taken after March 1, 1989; cannot possibly be public domain in the United States IagoQnsi (talk) 03:42, 25 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Maradona panini napoli 1989.jpg[edit]

Not clear when in 1989 this was published, but there is a strong possibility that it was published after March 1, in which case it could not possibly be public domain in the U.S. Should be deleted per COM:PCP IagoQnsi (talk) 03:55, 25 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Biełaruskaja škoła 1942-N5-I-II.pdf[edit]

This file was initially tagged by Gleb Leo as Copyvio (Copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: Copyright of Jazep Najdziuk (died in 1984). Could not verify authorship, converting to DR. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:16, 25 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Work «Z historyi Biełarusi» (№ 18) is writen by him. Gleb Leo (talk) 07:19, 25 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have nothing against the deletion, if we cannot verify copyright status. Plaga med (talk) 07:28, 25 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Jazep Najdziuk is listed as the publisher not the author. Copyright length is determined by the date of death of the author, not the publisher. --RAN (talk) 23:16, 25 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Screenshots of Javier Milei[edit]

Possible COM:LL. Screenshot from a YouTube video of a supposedly official channel. The channel is not the official one, for several reasons. It has a low number of followers (1.5K) and the party was second on the latest presidential elections in Argentina. It has a only a handful amount of videos. Most importantly checking the candidate's official webpage when this video was uploaded here one can see that the official YouTube channel at that time was this. This channel is still the official one, has nearly 300K followers, and hundreds of videos, and none of the ones I checked has a CC-BY license. Günther Frager (talk) 09:37, 25 October 2023 (UTC); edited by Wow (talk) 22:56, 21 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Außenansicht Hotel Bareiss mit Naturschwimmteich 3.jpg[edit]

copyvio, photographer www.guenterstandl.de not mentioned in description, no permission visble aside from that Alabasterstein (talk) 10:41, 25 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

same image: File:Bareiss 0718-0823.jpg Alabasterstein (talk) 07:42, 17 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Computer camera spider.png[edit]

Out of focus, unidentifiable, small; will likely never be used. Mhohner (talk) 10:45, 25 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Keep The file is in use on en:User:Reunion/Computer camera spider and has been for over a year. Reunion is an active user of English Wikipedia, so this image falls within this clause of COM:INUSE: The uploading of small numbers of images (e.g. of yourself) for use on a personal user page of Commons or another project is allowed as long as that user is or was an active participant on that project. --bjh21 (talk) 22:28, 4 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Laurent Libessart FACTS 2023.jpg[edit]

Original name was changed because I made a mistake with the person's name. It was changed to Fabio Bono FACTS 2023.jpg .Thus forwarding is unnecessary, please delete, thanks Sidney.Cortez (talk) 11:30, 25 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Files uploaded by Vsr2014 2[edit]

Vsr2014 (talk · contribs) uploaded 3 schemes as own. I don't think that Vsr2014 cannot have two different names.

— Redboston 11:19, 25 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Cinematograful Favorit.jpg[edit]

No proof that the author / copyright holder – 'Alberto Grosescu' per EXIF – has agreed to the terms of this license. Gikü (talk) 12:00, 25 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:A7401695.jpg[edit]

Copyright issues[1] Elfabso (talk) 12:02, 25 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:관암사 관음전 내부.jpg[edit]

The name of the person who donated the candles is located at the bottom of the two candles on the left. Therefore, I want to delete this file because even the name is personal information.(Korean Translation : 왼쪽 2개의 양초 아랫부분에 초를 보시한 사람의 이름이 보입니다. 이름이라도 개인정보이므로 사진을 삭제하고 싶습니다.) HwangHuang (talk) 14:02, 22 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Carte de Lanfroicourt en 1888.png[edit]

Il n'appartient pas au créateur Lanf.aubert (talk) 12:07, 25 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Keep The deletion request appears to be based upon the CC by SA license and it being labeled own work. Instead of deletion, the file information should be corrected. If the creation date is accurate (1888), a {{PD-old-assumed}} license could be applied. —Tcr25 (talk) 14:41, 25 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Салют(вино).jpg[edit]

Not own work, COM:PACKAGING. 188.123.231.18 12:27, 25 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Rybkin and Shumeyko (21-10-1995).jpg[edit]

Дубликат File:Ivan_Rybkin_and_Vladimir_Shumeyko_(1996-10-21).jpg MasterRus21thCentury (talk) 12:38, 25 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:YOUNG MACHINE BOY.jpg[edit]

Out of COM:SCOPE. Only used in the deleted article ro:YOUNG MACHINE BOY and deleted out-of-scope userpage en:User:Youngmachineboy. Gikü (talk) 12:58, 25 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Lebanese resistance brigades.jpg[edit]

w:Lebanese Resistance Brigades was founded in 1997. Per Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Lebanon, its logo will be protected for 50 years. HeminKurdistan (talk) 13:22, 25 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

See w:Template:Non-free USGov-IEEPA sanctions. This is OK. RisingTzar (talk) 17:14, 5 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sorry, after looking at the template a second time. It seems like it might not be OK on Wikimedia Commons but should be fine if it were hosted on English Wikipedia. RisingTzar (talk) 17:27, 5 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Norbert sternmut.jpg[edit]

Please check this ticket (and maybe compare with the previously deleted files of this uploader): The image subject cannot be the copyright holder. Who is the copyright holder? Do we have the copyright holder's permission or someone else's? 2003:C0:8F1F:7300:D020:6810:418E:95EF 13:24, 25 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Amalia Cecilia Bruni foto 2021 F. P (cropped).jpg[edit]

Piccolo seems to be the author of the article, with the image author being uncredited Bremps... 14:25, 25 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Amalia Cecilia Bruni foto 2021 F. P.jpg[edit]

Piccolo seems to be the author of the article, with the image author being uncredited Bremps... 14:25, 25 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:گردان امام علی در قشم.jpg[edit]

This file lacks typical Fars watermark and photographer credit, no indication of being a work by Fars. HeminKurdistan (talk) 15:31, 25 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This file turns out to be taken from Tasnim: File:Basij exercise in Semnan in 2014 (27).jpg. Although Tasnim is freely-licensed, I think this file is redundant because of reduced quality. HeminKurdistan (talk) 19:03, 25 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:MAF Factory Floor tour.jpg[edit]

Supposed own work by user Raphael.concorde, since indef blocked for hoaxes and copyright violations. Reverse image search via Tineye shows upload to Flickr a year before upload to Commons, apparently no longer publicly viewable on Flickr, but Tineye link confirms identical photo. Tineye search: [2] Flickr photo link from Tineye: [3] Note: Photo currently in use. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 15:36, 25 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Comment The image was uploaded to the now blacklisted Daniel Steelman account in 2018. The description there mentions the "CAHRF corridor", referring to the non-existent Chris A. Hadfield Rocket Factory. This image might be fine minus the reference to CAHRF. Adeletron 3030 (talk) 15:42, 25 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
 Comment the image "might be fine" if it can be found free licensed from a verifiable source. As Raphael.concorde and Flickr user Daniel Steelman (if not the same person, confederates in perpetrating a hoax) have engaged in blatant copyright violations and fraudulent photoshopping, neither qualifies as a verifiable source. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 16:34, 25 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Dafa Ahmad farezzi.jpg[edit]

Probable copyvio or spam, given the uploader's track record.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 13:45, 18 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 17:53, 18 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Dafa Ahmad farezzi.jpg[edit]

Copyright violation Ariandi Lie (talk) 15:37, 25 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Potret resmi dafa Ahmad farezzi.jpg[edit]

Copyright violation Ariandi Lie (talk) 15:38, 25 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Signature of dafa Ahmad farezzi.jpg[edit]

Copyright violation + hoax user Ariandi Lie (talk) 15:40, 25 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Awiramdn.png[edit]

Hoax logo Ariandi Lie (talk) 15:48, 25 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Badr Organization Military flag.svg[edit]

Logo seems to be beyond TOO per Iraqi law HeminKurdistan (talk) 15:51, 25 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Jo Lendle 2023.jpg[edit]

Ich widerspreche der Veröffentlichung dieses Fotos von mir. Sollte es Rückfragen geben, kontaktieren Sie mich bitte unter jo.lendle@hanser.de. Mit freundlichem Gruß, Jo Lendle 2001:A61:24E8:A201:858B:DFC:A102:402B 16:02, 25 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Wenn Jo Lendle dieses Foto von sich gelöscht haben will, soll es gelöscht werden. Tatsächlich entstand es auf keiner öffentlichen Bühne, sondern nach der Verleihung des Preises des Leipziger Buchmesse beim anschließenden Empfang.
Amrei-Marie (talk) 16:39, 25 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Steuermann! Laß die Wacht!.ogg[edit]

Copyvio of https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s1M30Zk93Yc (which is just the first result when you search YouTube for the title) – I haven’t done a technical analysis, but I’m sure it must be the same recording, there’s no way the timing and tuning and everything matches by accident. File:Republic of Rose Island.ogg is another copy by the same user.

(Side note: in the file’s history, I reverted some IP changes as “IP vandalism”; I only noticed afterwards that the pre-“vandalism” license info was also suspect, and that the IP has made several other edits related to the uploading user and is probably the same person. But even if the IP changes weren’t vandalism, the attribution there was still not correct, and in any event the YouTube video simply isn’t CC-licensed.) Lucas Werkmeister (talk) 17:29, 25 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:JW Governing body 1992.png[edit]

Copyrighted by the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania Junkönig (talk) 17:37, 25 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

exact resource: Book "Jehovah's Witnesses - Proclaimers of God's Kingdom", chapter 9, page 116, copyrighted 1993 [copyright has not yet expired] Junkönig (talk) 17:41, 25 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Foto of qurbanov ələkbərov.jpg[edit]

wrong date. copyright violation? Xocolatl (talk) 18:00, 25 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Олександр Василинюк.jpg[edit]

There are no any metadata of the file. Also uploader undo edit with no permission template. More than half a year uploader didn't give a permission. So, it looks in this case copyright violation. Kharkivian (talk) 18:00, 25 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:VL L5126 NzzeV6ve.jpg[edit]

copyright violation, see metadata Xocolatl (talk) 18:01, 25 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Carta del rei Ferran d'Antequera al seu primogènit Alfons (31-10-1413).djvu[edit]

Duplicated (extract of 2 pages from the whole 677 page book File:Historia de los condes de Urgel (IA historiadelosco00mascgoog).pdf). It was created for ca.source purposes, but now it has been overriden (using the whole book). Thanks. Aleator (talk) 18:22, 25 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've nominated for deletion also the whole PDF book file for other reasons, but the rationale for nominating this DjVu continues: it is a Djvu of 2 pages extracted from another file we already have. The Djvu was created because we wanted a "light" scan in ca.source, but now the source is the whole book, the "correct" scan (File:Historia de los Condes de Urgel (tomo II).pdf). You can see the transcription in these pages: 541 and next (the transclusion is here). So I cannot figure out what this DjVu can be used for now. -Aleator (talk) 00:29, 26 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Copyright Gontarski 2022.jpg[edit]

The file name and description state "Copyright Gontarski". The user is not Gontarsk, so it is not clear if the licence is correct. It is the only contribution of the user. Wouter (talk) 18:55, 25 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Files in Category:Alberto Giacometti[edit]

Artworks of Alberto Giacometti, who died in 1966. They are under copyright until 2037. An OTRS authorisation is needed from the author's heirs.

Ruthven (msg) 13:22, 13 October 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Note that the BEIC photos are in a different situation than the others. Proof of the photographer's license has already been sent to Wikimedia. The photographer himself was contracted by the entity on behalf of the authors for the sake of publication, and must have received a waiver to that purpose. --Nemo 19:12, 14 October 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    The link you provided says that the author of a derived work needs the permission of the original artist (Art. 4 LDA prevede che chi realizza elaborazioni creative di un’opera ne ottenga i diritti esclusivi, senza pregiudizio dei diritti dell’autore dell’opera originale. Se chi elabora un’opera altrui deve rispettare i diritti dell’autore originale, e quindi ottenere il permesso per la riproduzione e l’elaborazione, a maggior ragione il permesso è necessario quando l’elaborazione non è creativa. – @Nemo bis: thanks for providing it). BEIC photos have the permission from the photographer, but the OTRS permission doesn't contain one from the sculptor. This issue has been raised in other occasions, e.g. Commons:Deletion requests/File:Paolo Monti - Servizio fotografico - BEIC 6361509.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Paolo Monti - Servizio fotografico (Venezia, 1956) - BEIC 6342541.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Paolo Monti - Servizio fotografico (Italia, 1955) - BEIC 6341250.jpg, etc.
    We have to see if the photo changes completely the appearance of the original artwork (what's called "Protection threshold" in the document – Soglia di protezione); in other words, we still need the permission of the original author if the "identity of the original work is reproduced" without any "relevant semantic difference". --Ruthven (msg) 17:49, 15 October 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    This is one interpretation of the license BEIC provided, but not one I suggest to blindly follow. --Nemo 10:11, 17 October 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't have any special permission for this photo of Giacometti sculpture. Regards, -Виолетова (talk) 12:41, 17 October 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Deleted: Per COM:PRP - unclear license/copyright situation. Note also that COM:L requires explicit licenses (i.e., an acceptable license from BEIC would not be open to interpretation - "This is one interpretation of the license BEIC provided"). --Эlcobbola talk 21:17, 21 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Photo of Alberto Giacometti with his art by Erhard Wehrmann[edit]

Photo's with a VRT ticket of the photographer, however, these photos show a copyrighted work of Alberto Giacometti (1901-1966). Two cropped versions are available on Commons, where the artwork has been cropped to show the portrait of Giacometti, File:WehGi (cropped)2.jpg and File:WehGi (cropped) (cropped).jpg. The original versions can be undeleted in 1966+71=2037.

Ellywa (talk) 20:22, 25 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The definitive photograph was taken in 1962 at the Biennale in Venezia. Other photo artist and photo reporters were there and also took photos of Giacometti with his artworks. As can be seen from these photos, they were clearly taken with his consent. Here a photo taken probably on the same day: Photo by Ugo Mulas. It can therefore be assumed that Giacometti also at least silently permitted the present photo. Erhard Wehrmann was a well known photo artist by that time. Giacometti is looking in the direction of Wehrmann and has certainly noticed that one or more photos have been taken. He was certainly also aware that he was standing in front of his own artwork. Giacometti was furthermore at the Biennale. Therefore, he was aware of the purpose, nature and extent of the photographic recordings on site. He had to expect that the photographs of him and his artworks would be published. I would say, that a implied-in-fact consent for the photograph to be taken of him and the artwork can be assumed. Waterborough (talk) 09:00, 28 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Giacommetti gave silently consent for a photo of himself with his artwork. But would he give consent if his artwork would be cropped from the photo to be printed elsewhere, for instance on a pink teapot or on a raggy T-shirt? This is what ccbysa would allow. You simply do not know if he would give consent. And you do not know if the heirs of his copyright would give consent. Somebody could ask them. But that is what copyright is all about. An owner of copyright can control all copying. So imho we cannot keep this on Commons. Regards, Ellywa (talk) 14:31, 28 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
With this way of argumentation you can delete half of all images on wikimedia. It is not a question of whether the person granting permission agrees in detail to any possible form of redistribution, but whether there is consent for the photographing person to continue to use the artwork as he or she wishes. And according to you, that is the case here. Giacometti undoubtedly knows where he is and who he is. It is clearly in his interest that photos should be taken. His consent is valid beyond death, so that the heirs cannot object to it.Waterborough (talk) 22:00, 31 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
 Delete, to have permission to depict his artwork we need a VRT ticket of the original artist. This we do not have.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 20:21, 22 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
 Keep An implied-in-fact consent for the photograph to be taken of Giacometti and his artwork can be assumed. Waterborough (talk) 22:01, 23 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Files found with Special:Search/insource:"Casa de Moneda Argentina"[edit]

The source states that these image were provided by Argentine Central Bank ("Imagen: Banco Central de la República Argentina"), thus we cannot use argentina.gob.ar license (CC-BY) because they can only license their own content (explicitly stated in the T&C). Our guideline states currency is not in the public domain in Argentina, thus we cannot keep these images.

Günther Frager (talk) 21:14, 25 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Keep This DR statements are not sufficiently substantiated IMO. The Central Bank is part of the Argentine government since it was nationalised in 1946. In fact, its authorities are designated by the President of Argentina like any other government agency of that country.
The images are indicated as "Imagen: Banco Central de la República Argentina" but these images were published only at the Government of Argentina website (under the Cc-by-4.0/Argentina.gob.ar license) so which copyright law would be infringed? Under those circumstances, that license would not be unappropriated.
About the Argentina:currency, that guide/MOS was written before the argentina.gob.ar website published the banknotes (the Argentine copyright law was promulgated in 1933) Fma12 (talk) 23:23, 25 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As I wrote in Commons:Deletion requests/Files found with insource:"Argentine peso banknote": The Terms and Conditions of the website is about the content available on the website. It doesn't give a wildcard for the content of the whole Nation. The Central Bank is an autarchic entity (like the national universities), so they have their own policies and regulations. The Argentine mint (Casa de la Moneda) is a state-owned company and is no difference from other companies. The banknotes have design and the intellectual property of the design belongs to the designer. The current intellectual property law doesn't provide any exception for coins, stamps, etc. nor has a clause about work of state employees being in the public domain. The copyright law is a law, and only the legislative branch makes laws. The T&C of a website controlled by the executive branch is not a law and cannot overwrite one. In this particular case they acknowledge the image is from the Central Bank, so they cannot re-license it in the same way as they cannot re-license scans from newspapers [4], or paintings from an artists [5], etc. Günther Frager (talk) 00:23, 26 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
 Keep per above; Argentinian Central Bank is state bank and thus, part of the government. Argentina.gob.ar has the right to license these images as CC. Banfield - Amenazas aquí 00:16, 26 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
 Comment I think that this DR is an exagerated view of any precautionary principle. Unlike the national universities, which had their own statutes and their authorities are elected by an internal assembly (p.e. the University of Buenos Aires), the Central Bank directory is designated by the executive power. And decisions about the issues of new banknotes are taken by the National Government, not the mint.
On the other side, and as user:Banfield stated above, the Government of Argentina website has the right to license those images under a CC license. Those banknotes designs were not published neither on the Casa de Moneda website nor on any other website prior to Argentina.gob.ar. Fma12 (talk) 14:48, 26 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The Central Bank has also its statute, and yes the president elects the directory with the approval of the senate. The president elects also the members of the Supreme Court, both the Central Bank and the Supreme Court are independent entities. You are confusing the owning the intellectual property and owning a copy. I said that both the images had a different source (I didn't invent it, the webpage literally says it), and that the design of the bills are protected by copyright. The design is done by Casa de Moneda [6][7]. Moreover, the images of the $1000 banknotes were published first at the Central Bank on 23 May 2022 while the source cited on these images was the next day. See the press release and its accompanying images. The $2000 bank notes were initially announced (including images) on 2nd February 2023 [8], and were officially released on 22 May 2023 while the source cited was again published the next day. See the announcement and the accompanying press kit. The footer of the website states: "Copyright 2006-2023 © | Banco Central de la República Argentina | Todos los derechos reservados". Günther Frager (talk) 19:03, 26 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Files found with Special:Search/insource:"Argentine peso banknote"[edit]

The source states that these image were provided by Argentine Central Bank ("Imagen: Banco Central de la República Argentina"), thus we cannot use argentina.gob.ar license (CC-BY) because they can only license their own content (explicitly stated in the T&C). Our guideline states currency is not in the public domain in Argentina, thus we cannot keep these images.

Günther Frager (talk) 21:32, 25 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Keep This DR statements are not sufficiently substantiated IMO. The Central Bank is part of the Argentine government since it was nationalised in 1946. In fact, its authorities are designated by the President of Argentina like any other government agency of that country.
The images are indicated as "Imagen: Banco Central de la República Argentina" but these images were published only at the Government of Argentina website (under the Cc-by-4.0/Argentina.gob.ar license) so which copyright law would be infringed? Under those circumstances, that license would not be unappropriated.
About the Argentina:currency, that guide/MOS was written before the argentina.gob.ar website published the banknotes (the Argentine copyright law was promulgated in 1933) Fma12 (talk) 22:43, 25 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The Terms and Conditions of the website is about the content available on the website. It doesn't give a wildcard for the content of the whole Nation. The Central Bank is an autarchic entity (like the national universities), so they have their own policies and regulations. The Argentine mint (Casa de la Moneda) is a state-owned company and is no difference from other companies. The banknotes have design and the intellectual property of the design belongs to the designer. The current intellectual property law doesn't provide any exception for coins, stamps, etc. nor has a clause about work of state employees being in the public domain. The copyright law is a law, and only the legislative branch makes laws. The T&C of a website controlled by the executive branch is not a law and cannot overwrite one. In this particular case they acknowledge the image is from the Central Bank, so they cannot re-license it in the same way as they cannot re-license scans from newspapers [9], or paintings from an artists [10], etc. Günther Frager (talk) 00:18, 26 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
 Keep per above; Argentinian Central Bank is state bank and thus, part of the government. Argentina.gob.ar has the right to license these images as CC. Banfield - Amenazas aquí 00:09, 26 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
 Comment I think that this DR is an exagerated view of any precautionary principle. Unlike the national universities, which had their own statutes and their authorities are elected by an internal assembly (p.e. the University of Buenos Aires), the Central Bank directory is designated by the executive power. And decisions about the issues of new banknotes are taken by the National Government, not the mint.
On the other side, and as user:Banfield stated above, the Government of Argentina website has the right to license those images under a CC license. Those banknotes designs were not published neither on the Casa de Moneda website nor on any other website prior to Argentina.gob.ar. Fma12 (talk) 14:48, 26 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The Central Bank has also its statute, and yes the president elects the directory with the approval of the senate. The president elects also the members of the Supreme Court, both the Central Bank and the Supreme Court are independent entities. You are confusing the owning the intellectual property and owning a copy. I said that both the images had a different source (I didn't invent it, the webpage literally says it), and that the design of the bills are protected by copyright. The design is done by Casa de Moneda [11][12] Moreover, the images of the banknotes were published first at the Central Bank on 23 May 2022 while the article cited on these images was published the next day. See the press release and its accompanying images. The footer of the website states: "Copyright 2006-2023 © | Banco Central de la República Argentina | Todos los derechos reservados". Günther Frager (talk) 18:59, 26 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/2023/10/25&oldid=824868624"