Commons:Deletion requests/2023/10/26

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

October 26[edit]

File:Weimar, Schlossmuseum, Lucas Cranach der Ältere, Martin Luther als Junker Jörg.JPG[edit]

very bad quality, we have three better files File:Cranach il vecchio, martin lutero come Junker jörg, 1522 ca.JPG, File:Junker-Jörg-ML.jpg, File:Luther als Junker Jörg Weimar.JPG Oursana (talk) 00:16, 26 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Bwi der Aufnahme waren die Lichtverhältnisse schlecht. so dass wegen Reflexionem das Bild seitlich aufgenommen werden musste und verzerrt erscheint. Gibt es bessere Bilder, dann dieses löschen. Dguendel 06:22, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

File:Statue of Admiral Yi Sun-sin - panoramio.jpg[edit]

The copyrighted statue here is not incidental. See Commons:Deletion requests/File:Jongno-Korea 2009 (cropped).jpg for artwork details. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 03:14, 26 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


File:Gholamreza-salehi 13971206.jpg[edit]

No META data to suggest ownship of photo by uploader. Pierre cb (talk) 03:51, 26 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Files uploaded by Kevin Blackman (talk · contribs)[edit]

Most likely previously published on Facebook: FBMD code seen at the metadata. Proof of identity verification of the true copyright holder (the photographer) via email correspondence is required for images previously published on social media so to confirm if the uploader is indeed the photographer (the copyright holder) of these images and that the photographer (the copyright owner) has applied the license as indicated, as there have been numerous cases on Wiki before (and up to now) that the uploaders just grabbed images from Facebook or other social media sites. For email template, see COM:VRTS#Email message template for release of rights to a file. Better still, have the originals overwrite these FB-derived images, if the images are truly self-photographed works of the uploader.

JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 03:52, 26 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Files in Category:Palazzo Donini (Milan)[edit]

Unfortunately there's no FOP in Italy and the architects of this building, Gio Ponti and Alessandro Rimini, died in 1979 and 1976 respectively. So these images are copyrighted until at least 2050.

Adamant1 (talk) 06:21, 26 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  •  Keep the building lacks originality. -- Blackcat 02:12, 1 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Maybe. I don't know though. Those frames around the four windows in the middle of the building look pretty unique. Plus the different colored bricks for the top and bottom half of the building. Although I agree it's kind of generic other then that. But most buildings are. I mean, every building is essentially four walls, a roof, and a floor. --Adamant1 (talk) 02:24, 1 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Files in Category:Chiesa di San Biagio (Monza)[edit]

Unfortunately there's no FOP in Italy and the architect of this building, Luigi Caccia Dominioni, died in 2016. So these images are copyrighted until at least 2087.

Adamant1 (talk) 06:36, 26 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Adamant1 are you kidding me, right? File:MB-Monza-chiesa-San-Biagio-copertura-campanile.jpg is a part of the XVIIIth century demolished church, how can it possibly be under copyright? File:MB-Monza-campanile-chiesa-san-Biagio.jpg is IMO under ToO, which in Italy is quite high, basic rectangular building. Friniate (talk) 11:56, 26 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The tower on the ground is sure, but the modern building is pretty visible in the background. I disagree that the other image is under ToO since there's unique aspects to the tower and the roof of the building is visible at the bottom of the image. I'm going to lose any sleep over this if whomever closes this keeps either one because they disagree with my assessment though. --Adamant1 (talk) 12:19, 26 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think that the bulding behind is below ToO, but in any case it could be blurred, the subject of the photo is clearly the part of the old church. And, what unique aspects are you talking about, the cross on the roof? Quite unusual for a church I must say (and in any case it would fall under de minimis). Friniate (talk) 12:27, 26 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
OK. Blur it then and I'll remove it from the deletion request. Is there just no roof design that you think is original? lol. --Adamant1 (talk) 15:56, 26 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As I said, I don't think that it's necessary to blur it, it's below ToO anyway IMO. But if you're so afraid that the artist could come up and bring wmf in court, then blur it. Friniate (talk) 16:37, 26 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
But if you're so afraid that the artist could come up and bring wmf in court, then blur it. COM:PCP "Arguments that amount to "we can get away with it", such as the following, are against Commons' aims: 'The copyright owner will not bother to sue or cannot afford to.'"
That's not what I was saying, I genuinely think that the building in the background has a lower uniqueness than the cases deemed has acceptable in Commons:Threshold_of_originality#Italy.--Friniate (talk) 11:08, 27 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Files in Category:Corso Europa 18–20 (Milan)[edit]

Unfortunately there's no FOP in Italy and the architect of this building, Luigi Caccia Dominioni, died in 2016. So these images are copyrighted until at least 2087.

Adamant1 (talk) 06:51, 26 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Files in Category:Santa Maria Liberatrice (Milan) - Interior[edit]

Unfortunately there's no FOP in Italy and the architect of this building, Ezio Cerutti, died in 1990. So these images are copyrighted until at least 2061.

Adamant1 (talk) 07:12, 26 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I strongly disagree with that. The first images shows the windows and pillars in front of the brick wall, which are clearly unique. I don't see how you can say the second image is ToO either when it shows the unique design of the skylight pretty well. I actually didn't include the third image in this DR. So I'm not really sure why you brought it up, but whatever. I guess it can be deleted along with the other images, but I'd rather not combine images from other nominations into the same deletion request. --Adamant1 (talk) 12:24, 26 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Are unique if photographed in their entirety, but here we have to do with only a part of a brick wall and a window. For Varese ok, my bad, sorry. Friniate (talk) 12:31, 26 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I mean, it's probably borderline. So whatever. I'm not invested in it either way and no worries on the mistake. --Adamant1 (talk) 12:36, 26 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


File:S M Liberatrice, esterno T000104.jpg[edit]

Unfortunately there's no FOP in Italy and the architect of this building, Ezio Cerutti, died in 1990. So these images are copyrighted until at least 2061. Adamant1 (talk) 07:24, 26 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


File:Chiesa dei S.S.Pietro e Bernardo Foce GE.jpg[edit]

Unfortunately there's no FOP in Italy. Although I couldn't find any information about who created this stained glass window they clearly haven't been dead for 70+ years yet since it was installed in 2012. So the image should be deleted as COPYVIO until an undetermined date unless someone can provide evidence to the contrary. Adamant1 (talk) 07:44, 26 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Link: (usa traduttore Google)
http://www.vetratealbertella.it/opere.htm
https://pietrobernardo.wordpress.com/about/vetrata/
https://it.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raffaele_Albertella
https://www.culturaitalia.it/opencms/opencms/system/modules/culturaitalia/templates/viewItem.jsp?language=en&case=&id=oai%3Aoaicat.iccd.org%3A%40ICCD4292348%40
----------------------
Non dovrebbero esserci problemi di Copyright © L' opera è pubblica ed è fotografata da tutti in uso gratuito. Allora su WikiCommons non si potrebbero neanche più fotografare strade perché magari compare un monumento o un cartellone ecc. L'Opera è di Raffaele Albertella 1911-1961. Famiglia che da 5 generazioni ha laboratorio di restauro. Se dicessi al parroco il motivo della cancellazione si metterebbe a ridere. Assurdo. Grazie comunque per l'interessamento. Saluti. Al*from*Lig (talk) 08:30, 26 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi, Al*from*Lig. Hopefully you don't mind but I moved your comment to the DR so it's more visible. Thanks for the information about who created the window. Unfortunately it's still copyrighted until at least 2032 since they died in 1961. That's better then it never being undeleted though. Aside from that I can't really parse out what your getting at in relation to the parish priest laughing about this, but it's not really relevant anyway. So no big deal. --Adamant1 (talk) 08:46, 26 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]



File:Thomas Kamphuis.jpg[edit]

author is given as this person himself but this cannot be a selfie. No author given no permission. Hoyanova (talk) 07:49, 26 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Comment Are you aware that tripods exist and cameras are equipped with a self timer? -- Herbert Ortner (talk) 15:06, 3 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Files in Category:Centrale idroelettrica di Covalou[edit]

Unfortunately there's no FOP in Italy and the architect of this building, Giovanni Muzio, died in 1982. So these images are copyrighted until at least 2,053.

Adamant1 (talk) 08:05, 26 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't see anything special in the roof seen from above Uuhh, the design of the roof maybe? There can be different alpine roof designs after all. With the second image, I didn't nominate it for deletion because of the "graphic design" whatever your refering to, but because of the unique brick patterns in the wall and the design of the window along with it. Boyh of which have nothing to do with graphic design. --Adamant1 (talk) 14:10, 26 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As I said, the design of the roof is the typical traditional design of alpine roofs. Regarding the second image, the subject of the photo is clearly the inscription, so the bricks could be cut out and the image would still be usable. Friniate (talk) 14:33, 26 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Really? I've lived in a couple of alpine environments myself and the roofs were different. So I don't think your whole thing that there's a "typical" design for alpine roofs has any truth to it. As to the second image, at least IMO the subject of the photo is the inscription and everything around it. Including the brick wall and windows. I guess everything other then the inscription could be blurred, but at that point it seems like your just looking for an excuse to keep images that should otherwise be deleted. --Adamant1 (talk) 14:47, 26 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Not everything, just the brick patterns and the window, it remains a good 80% of the original image. here just few examples of alpine traditional roofs. here a page of a private company about mountain roofs in the Alps, which shows that this kind of solutions is absolutely standard and has functional reasons. Friniate (talk) 15:20, 26 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Files in Category:Centrale idroelettrica di Maën[edit]

Unfortunately there's no FOP in Italy and the architect of this building, Giovanni Muzio, died in 1982. So these images are copyrighted until at least 2,053.

Adamant1 (talk) 08:07, 26 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Text can be copyrighted. Although how much there has to be for it to qualify is another question, but I have seen images of plaques with about that much or less deleted before. Who might of authored it is another question. If not the architect then it can also be deleted undermined date due to having unknown (to us at least) authorship with the likelyhood that whomever wrote it probably hasn't been dead for more then 70 years. I think assuming it was created by the architect so it can be undeleted in 2053 instead of essentially never is the more reasonible option though. --Adamant1 (talk) 14:02, 26 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Files in Category:Garage Barnabone (Lodi)[edit]

Unfortunately there's no FOP in Italy and the architect of this building, Giovanni Muzio, died in 1982. So these images are copyrighted until at least 2,053.

Adamant1 (talk) 08:12, 26 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Files in Category:Palazzo del Governo (Sondrio)[edit]

Unfortunately there's no FOP in Italy and the architect of this building, Giovanni Muzio, died in 1982. So these images are copyrighted until at least 2,053.

Adamant1 (talk) 08:15, 26 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  •  Keep As I said in other DRs, the public administrations have the copyright on the works made on their behalf and paid by them per article 11 of the italian copyright law. This copyright expires after 20 years. This building was made on behalf of the province and the state (see). There is an ongoing controversy about the term "published" used by the law, which it has been discussed here, but there are various indicators that the term it's not taken too literally by italian legal experts and that public administrations do indeed have the copyright on the works made on their behalf.--Friniate (talk) 13:13, 26 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The phrase in the law is "published documents" and it seems like the "indicators" relate to databases, which would qualify as documents. So I don't see how it changes anything since buildings obviously databases or any other kind of document. It's not like there's a consensus about it anyway either. It would be ridiculous if we stopped nominating or deleting potentially copyrighted images related to specific subjects just because there was a few comments related to it on the Village Pump. That's not how things work. Especially since that was only one of several issues related to the whole thing that need to be dealt with. --Adamant1 (talk) 14:40, 26 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As you know very well, indicators are not limited to that: 1. there are official documents of italian municipalities that states that they have the copyright on the buildings that they own; 2. legal experts have stated that databanks are included in article 11 because they are among the things listed by articles 1 and 2, and those articles list also monuments. And most of all, there is no indicator of the contrary, despite so many users wanted to delete those images, no one could find any legal commentary that states that that "published" must be taken literally and applied only to written texts.
The fact about the documents is as I said in another DR totally unrelated, the law talks there only about the written documents published by academies and public cultural institutions, it has nothing to do with this building and this DR. Friniate (talk) 15:09, 26 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yeah your going to say and take whatever position leads to the images being kept. Personally I could care either way because I'm not from Italy and purely base my opinion on what country the person talking to is from or what language they speak like you do. It's extremely easy to be right in a nationalist echo chamber where no one is going to disagree with or challenge your position but have no problem dragging any outsides the second they do. --Adamant1 (talk) 15:48, 26 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Not at all, I'm intervening in many of your DRs and where they are actually founded on the law I didn't object them. Of course I object when they are based on made-up law articles and impossible interpretations. And since you can't answer with logical observations, you go with personal attacks, trying to drag me into the mud. Old strategy, but a bit obvious. Friniate (talk) 16:29, 26 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I object when they are based on made-up law articles That's quite an accusation. What law article did I make up exactly?
You go with personal attacks Kind of like you repeatedly accusing me of trolling, saying I don't know how to read, and acting like I made up law articles when I told I accidently pressed the wrong number on my keyboard? Oh yeah and you also repeatedly treated me like I miss-understood copyright with non-copyright even after I told you didn't. but sure, I'm the one personally attacking you. Just an FYI, but I wasn't even talking about you anyway. Even though you've clearly been attacking me. I've been getting pretty viciously attacked since I started nominating images related to buildings in Italy for deletion a few days ago, and not just by you. Not that I expect you to care, but Italian users clearly have issues when it comes to how they interact with people who don't speak Italian natively or come from other countries. You repeatedly insulting me everywhere is just one example of that. Not necessarily the worst either. --Adamant1 (talk) 16:49, 26 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The fact that you are the only person with whom I have these problems, whereas I'm clearly not the only one with whom you have these problems (and they don't seem to be all italians, btw how was that not racist?), should tell you something... As for the made-up laws, well, yu asked for permissions by a (not existent) federal authority for goods of the municipalities, you claimed that only cultural heritage monuments could be authorized, you asked for permissions of the municipalities for national buldings, you claimed that hospitals were cultural institutions, you claimed that a provision that is clearly applied to essays and comminications by academies is actually relevant for monuments, you brought as proofs of your claims articles that talked about things completely unrelated to the topic of the discussion: your comments have been full of made-up nonsense crap like that. And you wonder why I'm objecting your DRs?? Start good DRs with good motivations based on the actual law, and you won't get objections. Friniate (talk) 16:55, 26 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't know about that since it seems like your having similar problems with JWilz12345 in the village pump discussion. But whatever. It just goes to show much of an echo chamber you live in. Whereas, I tend to get in confrontations more because I edit in a wide range of areas and interact with people from all over the world on a pretty regular basis. So there's bound to be more conflicts do the nature of how I edit and cultural differences. That's fine. I rather have some uncomfortable discussions once in a while then edit in a small area of the world with a bunch of people who agree on everything or have the same old world opinions and ideas that I do.
And no it's not racist to say I'm having issues Italians when that's literally their nationality (not race) and their only coming at me because I nominated some images of Italy for deletion. Just like it isn't bigoted or racist of you to repeatedly treat my like my opinions are worthless because I'm not from Italy and don't speak the language. Although I could probably claim it is. As to rest of your comment, I'm not sure how you can act like I'm doing this because of bad motivations or say my DRs aren't based on the actual law when I've literally said in all of them that I nominated the images for deletion because there's no FOP in Italy and cited the law to you multiple times, but OK. Article 11 and 29 aren't the law. Whatever you say dude. --Adamant1 (talk) 17:13, 26 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
So, let's say that I read a chinese law. I don't know chinese and I read it with google translator. I understand it wrong. Then because of this misunderstanding I start dozens of mass deletions of photos of China. Some chinese people say to me "hey, you got it wrong, it says another thing". And they would be racist for telling me that I misunderstood a complex legal text written in a language that I don't know? Are you serious?
In some cases you cherry-picked pieces of the law in order to make it say things that it clearly doesn't say. In some other cases you just misunderstood commons help pages, essentially making up rules that simply don't exist. Friniate (talk) 19:50, 26 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That scenario might be valid if it was what actually happed, but no one nominated dozens of images of government owned buildings for deletion. Personally, I think I've only nominated three. In no is that "dozens." Let alone are three DRs "mass deletions." Also, I repeatedly asked you to qualify things and find some documents that I could read about it, which you refused to do. Instead just laying it into repeatedly in multiple DRs. Otherwise all you had to do was find the document you just linked to in the Village Pump originally instead of turning the whole thing into a smear campaign and I probably would have re-tracked the DRs with an apology to everyone involved. I obviously can't and am not going to do that when all you or any other Italian user does is smear me and refuse to research it more when I ask you to. My bad for refusing to acknowledge the information you never gave me though dude. There's no reason I'd take anything you'd say at face value when every other message you write is full of backhanded insults, dishonest comments about me and what I've said Etc. Etc. Maybe don't act that way next time if you want people to listen to you. --Adamant1 (talk) 20:04, 26 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Files in Category:Secondo palazzo Montecatini (Milan)[edit]

Unfortunately there's no FOP in Italy so buildings are copyrighted until at least 70 years after the architect's death. In this case the building seems to have been built by Gio Ponti, Eugenio Soncini, and Antonio Fornaroli. Ponti died in 1979, Soncini in 1993, and I couldn't find any information about when or if Fornaroli is dead but it clearly hasn't been for more then 70 years since the building was built in 1951. So these images are copyrighted until an as yet undernimmed date unless some can figure out when Fornaroli died.

Adamant1 (talk) 09:05, 26 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Fornaroli was the engineer (see), so I don't think that we should take him into account, since the elements of artistic and urbanistic importance were almost certainly designed by Ponti. Friniate (talk) 13:18, 26 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Engineer and artist from I read. I more included him because the later then former since it would have undoubtedly meant he was involved in designing the building. Although probably to a lesser degree then Ponti, but it doesn't matter. Although its not enginer aren't involved in the design proccess either. But regardless, even if he only designed 30 percent of the building and Ponti 60 he'd still be the copyright holder as the (possible) one out the three who lived the longest. --Adamant1 (talk) 14:20, 26 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well, here it says "In Antonio Fornaroli, Ponti had not only found a partner who was able to understand and execute his architectural projects". Although his role was clearly important, it doesn't indicate that he had a role in designing the projects. Friniate (talk) 14:47, 26 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
BTW the link above shows also that Fornaroli was dead by April 2023. Friniate (talk) 14:48, 26 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Maybe it's just me, but I don't think one sentence from a random, anonymous written blog post qualifies as an authority about how much involvement he had in designing the building. The fact is that he's partially credited with it's creation and that's what matters. Determining who holds the copyright of joint authored work isn't a game of "who showed up to work the most." As to the rest, even if he was dead "by" April 2023 I think the un-deletion date has to be based on the actual year the person died. Not some random future date after the fact. --Adamant1 (talk) 15:13, 26 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's the introduction of the catalogue of the goods of Fornaroli's house sold by his grandkids at auction, if any it should have increased Fornaroli's role. It was written by Salvatore Licitra, Gio Ponti's grandson and founder of the Gio Ponti Archives in Milan. I know that you are not used to read stuff, but this one was even in english, you could have made the effort... Friniate (talk) 15:25, 26 October 2023 (UTC)'Reply[reply]
I actually did read it, earlier before you linked to it in this discussion. Along with other things about Fornaroli. Regardless, nothing in it conclusively stated how much of a role he played in the design of the building, or really talked about it at all, and the part of it that you quoted is just aspirational marketing. A relative of Ponti saying Fornaroli executed "his" plans is meaningless. Really, less then that since it could literally mean anything. --Adamant1 (talk) 15:42, 26 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Found it, Fornaroli died in 1982: [1]. The undeletion date should be therefore 2074. Friniate (talk) 16:35, 26 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Friniate: I assume you mean 2053? --Adamant1 (talk) 00:26, 14 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No, but 2074 was wrong anyway, thanks, I meant 2064 Friniate (talk) 10:26, 14 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Files in Category:Galleria De Cristoforis (1954)[edit]

Unfortunately there's no FOP in Italy and the architects of this building, Eugenio and Ermenegildo Soncini, died in 1993 and 2013 respectively. So these images are copyrighted until at least 2084.

Adamant1 (talk) 09:17, 26 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Are ordinary interior hallways really copyrightable in Italy? There seems to be no significant architectural originality to any of these except File:Milano torre Tirrena passaggio.JPG. - Jmabel ! talk 14:43, 26 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm not going to claim to know where the line is, but with the hallway there's the wall made up of smaller gold panels and the 1930s style window frames. Plus the whole thing has an art deco vibe. Although the wall could just have been setup by the store as part of the window display but it's hard to tell. And the window frames might not be original enough. I have no clue. The hallway clearly has an art deco look to it though and that has to be for a reason. --Adamant1 (talk) 15:02, 26 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Files in Category:Palazzo Galbani[edit]

Unfortunately there's no FOP in Italy and the architects of this building, Eugenio and Ermenegildo Soncini, and Pier Luigi Nervi who died in 1993, 2013, and 1979 respectively. So these images are copyrighted until at least 2084.

Adamant1 (talk) 09:25, 26 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Files in Category:Aula Paolo VI[edit]

Unfortunately there's no FOP in Italy and the architect of this building, Pier Luigi Nervi, died in 1979. So these images are copyrighted until at least 2050.

Adamant1 (talk) 09:48, 26 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Adamant1: doesn't free of panorama apply here? Jakub T. Jankiewicz (talk) 10:26, 26 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No. Sadly Italy doesn't have freedom of panorama. --Adamant1 (talk) 10:28, 26 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have no issue with the building being blurred out of the images. Someone needs to do it before this is closed or they should be deleted though. --Adamant1 (talk) 14:36, 26 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'd argue that those 3 photos are already OK, but maybe I'm biased because my eyes are not drawn to the new building but to everything else. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:49, 27 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There's definitely a tendency to automatically focus on and make out whatever your intentionally looking for in a photograph. It doesn't help in this case that the building is naturally more pronounced then the others due to being the only one that's modern. So usually what I ask myself in similar cases is if it was not for whatever the object is would the photographer have taken the photograph to begin with. In other words, what's the "but for." In otherwards, is the building the cause of the photograph to exist. I'd probably agree not with File:00120 Vatican City - panoramio (6).jpg since the building is off to the side of the image. It's less clear if the photographer meant for the building to be in the shot with File:2016 Views from the dome of Saint Peter's Basilica 16.jpg though since it's right in the middle of the photograph. Probably they did. Otherwise why that specific perspective? Well, the middle of the photograph lines up with the road going into the distance in the foreground pretty well. So maybe that was it and the building has nothing to do with it. But then we are getting into extreme tea leaf reading territory and you'd have to agree that's now how we determine which images to keep or delete. So the more sane thing is to just assume that the building matters to the photograph. Otherwise we could justify keeping all images of copyrighted buildings as de minimis because there's a blue jay on a branch 3 miles in the distance and that's really what the person was trying to take a photograph of or some nonsense like that. But I'm fine with keeping File:00120 Vatican City - panoramio (6).jpg if either one of you think the building isn't prominent enough in that image. It clearly isn't just incidental with File:2016 Views from the dome of Saint Peter's Basilica 16.jpg though. --Adamant1 (talk) 07:32, 27 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I thought it was before, but now I'm seeing it differently. I'm content to leave the decision up to the closing admin. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:23, 27 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


File:Alla Zasl.jpg[edit]

This file was initially tagged by Mg Kelly C as Speedy (speedydelete) and the most recent rationale was: это изображение мое и я хочу его удалить
Converted to regular DR to allow for discussion, as file does not qualify for G7-pseedy. -- Túrelio (talk) 10:05, 26 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Marcelo Simón 1970-198-.jpg[edit]

There is no evidence that this image is in the public domain in Argentina and the United States as required by COM:Licensing. First, this image was taken from an archive and it is actually a negative film. That is, there is no evidence this image was ever published, and let alone when. The images in Argentina enter in the public domain 20 years after their first publication, provided they were created at least 25 years ago. In case it was published, we need to know when and where to determine if it is in the public domain in the United States. The archive name (" Hasenberg M. y Quaretti B. (1979-198-)") suggest these images were taken after 1970. Any publication in Argentina after 1971 that was not simultaneously published in the United States had its rights restored in 1996. Also, the website where it was taken clearly states that the image can only be use for research or cultural purposes. Günther Frager (talk) 10:49, 26 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Nik black.jpg[edit]

Person died in july 2023, can not be original own work of sept. 2023. Original date? Author? Source? Copyright status? Drakosh (talk) 10:51, 26 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This is the photo of my father made by me back in 2002. Sorry for misundertanding Светлана Толмачева (talk) 15:01, 26 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
My condolences. Please fix the date on the file page. The photo looks older than 2002. Is that definitely the year you shot the photo? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:46, 27 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Files in Category:Interior of Musée Olympique, Lausanne[edit]

COM:FOP Switzerland does not apply for interiors of buildings. Following the majority view in the legal literature, freedom of panorama does not apply to interior spaces. Hence Article 27 cannot be invoked for depictions produced in the staircase or the rooms of a building. The museums architect died in 2013 and in Switzerland exists a standard of life plus 70 years.

Paradise Chronicle (talk) 11:23, 26 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

As some files from another DR were kept for TOO, I add that Commons:TOO Switzerland defines works as "literary and artistic intellectual creations with individual character, irrespective of their value or purpose". The files are created by a person (individual), so in my opinion all files should be deleted irrespective of their value or purpose. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 07:43, 6 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Files from Wikiloc[edit]

These images are sourced to Wikiloc, but image pages do not show licensing information and the site copyright disclaimer says "all rights reserved," so without additional evidence, they’re presumed copyrighted.

Now, I do see some user profiles that specify Creative Commons licensing. If that is the case, please link to the statement in the “permission” field in the information template. Otherwise, please ask the photographers to send copyright releases to COM:VRT.

Adeletron 3030 (talk) 11:42, 26 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Info: I have been in contact crecently with uploader V.B.Speranza, and was under the impression that these photos were of their own authorship. @V.B.Speranza: Como é que é? -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 16:33, 2 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sim, são de autoria minha e de pessoas que me deram autorização para as colocar no commons V.B.Speranza (talk) 19:56, 2 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@V.B.Speranza If they photographers have given permission (remember, it's not enough to just give permission for use - they must be licensed for any use or modification), they can submit license statements at COM:VRT. Adeletron 3030 (talk) 20:58, 2 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
All photos from apriet are mine, I don’t know what I can do about the other ones V.B.Speranza (talk) 21:55, 2 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Pf. sobrepõe aqui no Commons (onde diz «Upload a new version of this file») com o ficheiro JPEG original da câmara, em vez do que está no Wikiloc. Se não tens acesso ao original, então tem de ser via COM:VRT. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 17:38, 3 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Files in Category:Kapelle Ermenswil[edit]

Com:FOP Switzerland It is generally held that the interior of a church cannot be depicted under Article 27.[18] The Church was inaugurated in 1967 and its architect Felix Schmid died in 2004. Switzerland knows a standard of life plus 70 years, so delete for now and undelete in 2075.

Paradise Chronicle (talk) 11:46, 26 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


File:NYC Sewer 20231024 115155.jpg[edit]

2022 artwork, artist still living--see [2] DanielPenfield (talk) 11:54, 26 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  •  Comment With due respect, the "artwork" looks to me to simply be a reproduction of an old New York City manhole cover mounted on a pole - I question if this has originality to qualify for copyright. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 19:47, 13 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Staff meeting Radio Ellen 1994.jpg[edit]

Probable copy vivo; meta data references proffesional photographic agency, and no connection between stated photographer and uploader is shown. LittleGun (talk) 11:58, 26 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This is my own image, uploaded by me. I am Mikael Lundgren, photographer at Bild I Norr in Umeå. Do I have to do anything more to prove this? Goforthefuture (talk) 11:55, 13 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Wow, that is fantastic! Great picture with a lot of value for Wikipedia and more. As we are stingy with free license, and the meta data references a professional photographic agency and said agency (www.bildinorr.se) states "All rights reserved" I think you do need to do some more. One easy way could be uploading the picture to your website and write an accepted creative commons license or hopefully get help to be cleared as a user for any future uploads. I hope some more experienced commons user can help you more. Thank you again, and sorry about the inconvenience! LittleGun (talk) 15:29, 13 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Shenzhou-10-crew.jpg[edit]

I couldn't find another source for this exatcly same image, but everything I could find makes me believe that it is copyrighted by China Daily - and anyway, Spacefacts doesnt release anything under Creative Commons. Erick Soares3 (talk) 12:19, 26 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This derivative also. Erick Soares3 (talk) 12:20, 26 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Rafa koralowa na puzzlach 1000 elementów - kwiecień 2020.jpg[edit]

2D artwork, Uploader photo, but uploader is not necessarily the copyright holder for the artwork in the puzzle. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 13:05, 26 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Files uploaded by Ezteban100 (talk · contribs)[edit]

2D artwork/photo. Uploader photos, but without further information I'm not convinced that the artwork (currently unattributed on Commons) used for the puzzled are compatibly licensed for Commons.

ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 13:10, 26 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Понгильский, Флегонт Николаевич.jpg[edit]

Нет никаких сведений об авторе, соответственно нельзя утверждать, что он умер до 1 января 1942 года или в период с 1 января 1942 года до 1 января 1946 года. Фотография никогда не публиковалась/обнародовалась до момента получения исследователями возможности ознакомления с материалами уголовного дела, что могло стать возможным не ранее 1991 года. Jim Hokins (talk) 13:32, 26 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Я не вижу причин считать, что шаблон {{PD-Russia-1996}} установлен корректно. Ни одино из условий перехода в общественное достояние не очевидно.— Redboston 03:48, 27 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    The argument would be that this is an anonymous photograph from before 1946. However, there is the issue of publication. If this image was intended purely as an identification photograph of the subject for internal use by government bureaucracy and never intended to be made public until 1991, then it would presumably indeed still be copyrighted. Felix QW (talk) 07:48, 31 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Keep This is anonymous photowork: there is not any precedent for Soviet mug shots, that some mug shot was properly attributed by requirements of Soviet copyright legislation for non-anonymous photowork (these requirements had been excluded from Russian copyright legislation in 1992-1993 only). "this image was intended purely as an identification photograph of the subject for internal use by government bureaucracy" - in Soviet/Russian legislation publication procedure is depend on nature of work, the main point - the work must be separated from author (his/her close relatives and friends), his/her publisher or employer. Thу Soviet/Russian state is not publisher or employer, it is not legal person, specific government body is legal person (employer or publisher). In such case employee of one government body created work, but it was used by other government bodies too (was separated from author and publisher/employer). Alex Spade (talk) 09:29, 31 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Files uploaded by Yura kr (talk · contribs)[edit]

Probably not own works: Author Botnari_Vitalie or FBMD in metadata.

Komarof (talk) 13:55, 26 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Nicola Raffetà con locandina film “aspettando la rivoluzione”.jpg[edit]

The film poster is copyrighted and is way too big to be de minimis. Jaqen (talk) 14:49, 26 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No, wait a moment, is not copyrighted. 9002Jack (talk) 15:16, 26 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@9002Jack Are you saying the film poster isn’t copyrighted? That would be unusual. Adeletron 3030 (talk) 11:49, 20 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
How can I prove you? —9002Jack (talk) 9002Jack (talk) 13:28, 20 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There’s a process described at COM:VRT for creators/owners to verify that the source/license information is correct. Adeletron 3030 (talk) 13:52, 20 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Files in Category:Interior of Kirche Rüeggisberg[edit]

COM:FOP Switzerland, Following the majority view in the legal literature, freedom of panorama does not apply to interior spaces ... Commons opinion is that stained glass windows should be considered part of interior spaces. It is generally held that the interior of a church cannot be depicted under Article 27. The windows were created in 1967 by Felix Hoffmann who died in 1975. It's an old church, but the windows are new and to focus of the nominated files is also on the windows. Switzerland knows a standard of life and 70 years. I nominate them for deletion and suggest to undelete them in 2046.

Paradise Chronicle (talk) 15:00, 26 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


File:АгаБурятОкругГерб.svg[edit]

The previous version(s) is a copyright violation(s) Kelly The Angel (talk) 15:32, 26 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Files in Category:Interior of Thomaskirche Hard (Zürich)[edit]

COM:FOP Switzerland does not apply for the interior of churches. It is generally held that the interior of a church cannot be depicted under Article 27. One of the architects was Oskar Bitterli who died in 2012. Of the other architect Ernst Rohrer I didn't find an obituary yet. Delete and wait until the interior enters PD

Paradise Chronicle (talk) 16:07, 26 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


File:Championnats-france-freestyle-football-2023-qualifications-nicox.jpg[edit]

Metadata credits BsmK PHOTO Adeletron 3030 (talk) 16:46, 26 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Portrait Josef Zauner.jpg[edit]

possible copyvio - Copyright: www.fotohofer.at M2k~dewiki (talk) 16:50, 26 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Fig 8 Scone.jpg[edit]

it could be copyrighted and also there were already a better version Wentwort12 (talk) 16:58, 26 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:MonicaJonsson 5.jpg[edit]

Found elsewhere on the web and unlikely to be own work Skivsamlare (talk) 17:02, 26 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:УДП печатка.svg[edit]

Incorrect version of the seal (modern reconstruction). Should be deleted and replaced by the correct svg-version: (you can see this version in the original documents, created by the Ukrainian national government (1941): 1, 2, 3, 4. — صلاح الأوكراني (talk) 17:08, 26 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Ikan Kekek: Nothing to do with COM:NPOV here. It’s just an incorrect version of that has to be replaced with correct svg-version as mentioned above. --Obivan Kenobi (talk) 06:26, 29 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You didn't read the links. Read the links. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:27, 29 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Ukrainian-state-seal-1941.png[edit]

Incorrect version of the seal. Should be deleted and replaced by more correct svg-version: (you can see this version in the original documents, created by the Ukrainian national government (1941): 1, 2, 3, 4. — صلاح الأوكراني (talk) 17:16, 26 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Abdullayeva B.jpg[edit]

duplicate of File:Barno Abdullayeva.jpg Jochen Burghardt (talk) 17:19, 26 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Răcădău River.jpg[edit]

I uploaded it by mistake PosifCool (talk) 17:36, 26 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • I'd suggest  Keeping the photo. It was uploaded only 8 days ago, but it's already COM:INUSE. Needs categorization, though. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:33, 27 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Ok. I want to change the name though, that is not the Răcădău River PosifCool (talk) 06:28, 12 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • No problem, PosifCool. Have a look at COM:File renaming. Or if you prefer, just state what the name should be, and I can change it for you. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:28, 13 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Ok thanks, change it to "View of a forest from a hill in Răcădău" please. And also can you remove it from the Wikisource page Răcădău River? Thank you very much. PosifCool (talk) 19:59, 14 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I made the filename change. I haven't edited at Wikisource before. If you lack the permissions to remove it there, I wouldn't be able to, either. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:22, 15 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Dr. Carlos Rogerio Figueiredo, Ph.D..jpg[edit]

Because it will no longer be used. I no longer desire to write an article in Wikipedia. Ricazevedo (talk) 17:44, 26 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • I'd tend to  Keep the photo as possibly useful, considering the search results on this guy. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:31, 27 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:15-06-12FI1 0152.jpg[edit]

1910 French photograph, likely public domain but without knowing more about the photograph, it's difficult to be certain. Abzeronow (talk) 17:59, 26 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A cropped version of this image appears in this document from Aix-les-Bains. It credits the image to an anonymous photographer, but dates it to 1963, which would mean it could be undeleted in 2034. —Tcr25 (talk) 19:48, 26 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
 Delete 1963 photograph, not yet public domain in France. Abzeronow (talk) 20:39, 26 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Elefantoj en Da Lat 3 edited 0.webm[edit]

request by uploader Sebastian Wallroth (talk) 18:09, 26 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Liwa Fatemiyoun during Battle of Palmyra.jpg[edit]

EXIT attributes copyright to Husayn Gold HeminKurdistan (talk) 18:26, 26 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:HOW DO I KNOW I AM MENTALLY OKAY.pdf[edit]

Plain text document outside of COM:SCOPE. Marbletan (talk) 18:27, 26 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Freneza domo en Da Lat 2 edited 0.webm[edit]

request by uploader Sebastian Wallroth (talk) 18:28, 26 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:KIM A.R.+.jpg[edit]

File:Ким Алексей Ростиславович.jpg with a different set of medals photoshopped in. Unclear if done in good faith, the description doesn't mention the change. Belbury (talk) 18:37, 26 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Files by Photo Archives[edit]

Either files copied from the internet without explicit permission, or doubtful claim by uploader to be the author of the picture. --BadzilBot (talk) 18:39, 26 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Files uploaded by Sorinpopescu (talk · contribs)[edit]

Screenshots of varying resolution and quality, no EXIF info. Very unlikely own work.

Gikü (talk) 19:42, 26 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:OIG (75).jpg[edit]

This is an AI generated image created to mock Hulk Hogan. It cannot be used on any Wikipedia article or other Wiki project, and thus is not within the scope of Wikimedia Commons. CeltBrowne (talk) 21:12, 26 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Random Chimp Event poster.jpg[edit]

Nonsense and probable copyvio Dronebogus (talk) 21:27, 26 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Delete, likely copyright photo. -- Ooligan (talk) 03:12, 11 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
 Speedy delete G10. --A1Cafel (talk) 05:24, 20 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


File:Prixxy.jpg[edit]

Nonsense, copyvio and not in use Dronebogus (talk) 21:38, 26 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Files uploaded by Alchatt (talk · contribs)[edit]

Amateur porn and exhibitionism

Dronebogus (talk) 21:43, 26 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


File:Female masturbation.gif[edit]

Quality is rather poor despite the high resolution. Not sure there’s anything sufficiently unique here to justify that. Dronebogus (talk) 21:47, 26 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Johan-Meliezer.jpg[edit]

To small and good resolution Karin58 (talk) 22:15, 26 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Files in Category:Steinkirche Cazis[edit]

COM:FOP Switzerland doesn't apply for the interior of churches. It is generally held that the interior of a church cannot be depicted under Article 27.[18] The architect of the church Werner Schmidt is still alive.

Paradise Chronicle (talk) 22:16, 26 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


See Deletion requests August 2012.--Parpan05 (talk) 05:12, 27 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you, interesting. But I still want to nominate for deletion.
In that discussion of 2012 neither the rationale of the copyright of the church's architect Werner Schmidt nor the standard protection of life plus 70 years of works irrespective of their value or purpose were considered. But the copyright rules of Switzerland were also not as elaborated in 2012, when they did not have their own page. Today (11 years later) churches are named separately and only the sections on Accessible to the public and permanently situated of FOP Switzerland have a similar size than the whole Copyright of Switzerland in 2012. Today we discuss the architect by name and are able to calculate when the the interior of the building would be in the PD, which it should not be until at least 70 years after the architect died.
Paradise Chronicle (talk) 09:07, 27 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Another rationale also not considered during the former DR in 2012, was that the church is not permanently accessible to the public. The church is only open from 10.00 to 17.00 (Winter) or 18.00 (Summer) o'clock. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 07:39, 28 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Files in Category:Photo Elysée et mudac (Plateforme 10)[edit]

COM:FOP Switzerland Following the majority view in the legal literature, freedom of panorama does not apply to interior spaces.[14] Hence Article 27 cannot be invoked for depictions produced in the staircase or the rooms of a building.[15]. Exteriors are ok, interiors not. The museum was inaugurated in June 2022 and the architects Manuel and Francisco Aires Mateus are still alive..

Paradise Chronicle (talk) 22:31, 26 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Do we have a (federal) court decision on this? "the majority view in legal literature" isn't binding and is not necessarily correct. PaterMcFly (talk) 06:56, 27 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I am not aware of one, but Art 27 of the Federal Act on Copyright and related rights states that premises should be permanently accessible to the public which this museum is not. It is usually open from 10.00 - 18.00 and Tuesdays it is closed. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 00:13, 28 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ok, you might be right here. A museum is "less public" than e.g. a church. PaterMcFly (talk) 19:22, 30 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Files in Category:Mauritius Oberengstringen[edit]

COM:FOP Switzerland Following the majority view in the legal literature, freedom of panorama does not apply to interior spaces.[14] It is generally held that the interior of a church cannot be depicted under Article 27.[18] Commons opinion is that stained glass windows should be considered part of interior spaces.[19] The architect Fritz Metzger died in 1973 and Switzerland has a standard of life plus 70 years, therefore delete and undelete in 2044.

Paradise Chronicle (talk) 22:56, 26 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have seen some have a VRT ticket, but that could only count for the artwork and not the interior space of the church in which the art is located. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 00:01, 27 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


File:Chochito rico.jpg[edit]

COM:VULVA Dronebogus (talk) 23:56, 26 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Files in Category:Santi Pietro e Bernardo (Foce, Genoa)[edit]

Unfortunately there's no FOP and although I couldn't find any information about the architect of this building, Lorenzo Castello, they clearly haven't been dead for 70 years yet since it was built in the 1950s. So these images are copyrighted until an as yet undetermined date unless someone can provide evidence to the contrary.

Adamant1 (talk) 07:38, 26 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

How in any way what-so-ever is the second image not a copyright violation? --Adamant1 (talk) 13:53, 26 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Wrong image, thank you, I meant File:Foce Chiesa San Pietro.jpg. Friniate (talk) 14:35, 26 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
OK. Your original comment makes more sense now. Although the front of the church still makes up a good portion of the image. So I don't think its de minimis. But I can see where others might disagree with me. It's not like there is a bright line when it comes to what makes something qualify as de minimis or not. --Adamant1 (talk) 14:52, 26 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Church included in WLM list.--Bbruno (talk) 17:15, 27 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
True. But then the law is doesn't seem to indicate that Catholic Church can retain the copyrights of works created on their behalf though. So at least IMO the WLMI aggreement isn't valid. I think that's backed up by the facts though. --Adamant1 (talk) 17:22, 27 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/2023/10/26&oldid=821479120"