Commons:Deletion requests/2024/06/22

Sorry this picture is not interesting for an encyclopedia Thesurajsahu (talk) 04:15, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment I think it would be of interest for this project, because the Wikipedia article on this politician doesn't have an image yet: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rupkumari_Choudhary . The problem would rather be a question of potential copyvio: https://myneta.info/LokSabha2024/candidate.php?candidate_id=2129 Nakonana (talk) 11:24, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: myneta might not be the source of this image either. The photo can be found on lots of websites. It might an official government portrait. Now the question is whether India has a similar rule as the US that says that political portraits are in the public domain if they were taken by photographers who work for the government. (or whatever the exact wording of the US rule is, I don't remember it clearly) Nakonana (talk) 11:29, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Major personality rights violation—certainly too large for any educational project to ever use it. This needs to go. Zanahary (talk) 04:39, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Although the video this frame comes from is freely licensed, that video appears to use clips from actual Scott the Woz videos, which to my knowledge are not freely licensed. So this appears to be a derivative work of a non-free work and therefore not allowed. [REDACTED] This is my request; I forgot to log in when making it. Anon126 (✉ ⚒) 06:52, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Delete agree. Unless Scott gave permission for this frame to be used in a CC licensed video then this should be deleted. And I don't think Scott did give permission. SDudley (talk) 14:44, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Keep Yes, the ScottTheWoz videos are not freely licensed, and this is definitely a reused snippet from one of the regular videos. As always with reuse, it is naturally difficult for us to verify whether BeatEmUps had permission to use the snippet and whether it was thus legitimately uploaded under Creative Commons. Since it is a relatively large and active YouTube channel that YouTube has not taken action against since 2013, I have simply assumed that the channel operates correctly under copyright law and that the licensing is correct. Hence the upload. I think there is no real evidence either for or against a permission by ScottTheWoz. I don't know if Wikimedia deletes content just because we don't know if third parties have properly licensed it, but if so, unfortunately, I can't change much about that uncertainty. LukeTriton (talk) 13:39, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is a difference between "operates correctly under copyright law" and "the licensing is correct." It's possible (or even likely) that BeatEmUps used the clips under fair use without obtaining permission from Scott, and Commons does not accept fair-use media. While this policy seems to apply primarily to direct reuse of material under fair use (like film and album covers on the English Wikipedia), I think the same principle applies here: Fair use depends on context, and Commons cannot rely on the context of BeatEmUps's commentary. Anon126 (✉ ⚒) 19:19, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, if he only used the snippet within fair use, then labeling the entire video as CC is wrong, and we should delete the image. My point is just that we can't tell if this happened, and it's a common thing that we can't. I honestly don't know what the guidelines are for when a deletion is justified. LukeTriton (talk) 07:02, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Typically, under many copyright laws, the producer or production company is considered the first owner of the copyright for a cinematographic film.

However, individual contributions, like scripts, are a different matter. Scriptwriters, by default, own the copyright to their written works. But when they’re commissioned by a production company or sell their script, they often transfer these rights to the producer."

• https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/who-holds-copyright-movie-director-producer-bytescare

Just because Nordisk Film purchased the distribution rights for the film in Denmark it does not necessarily mean that they have the legal rights necessary to release the trailer under a CC license. We need to have this issue clarified before we continue to upload more trailers of US trailers from the channel Trade (talk) 09:01, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's a good question, and probably more one for COM:VP/C than for a DR. - Jmabel ! talk 20:36, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Delete Nordisk is a distribution company, they have a license to distribute and/or broadcast it in the Nordic countries for a limited time frame. For this particular film, someone can contact Jacob Shapira, the person that manages the rights and permissions according to https://publicrecords.copyright.gov/detailed-record/34447341. Günther Frager (talk) 19:04, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Where do you read that he manages the rights and permissions? Trade (talk) 20:09, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Where do you read that he manages the rights and permissions? . That is in the copyright entry recorded in the US Copyright Office that I provided: Rights and Permissions: Jacob Shapira, (310) 703-1700, jshapira@hwhmf.com. It has nothing to do with the Danish company. Günther Frager (talk) 20:42, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have to correct myself. The copyright record above is for the script. The entry for the movie itself is https://publicrecords.copyright.gov/detailed-record/35770467. There are other entries for transfer of copyright. Nordisk doesn't appear in any. Günther Frager (talk) 21:05, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As far as i can tell every single video released within the last 5-6 years on this channel have indiscriminately been marked as Creative Commons. I have no clue what went through the head of NF's social media manager Trade (talk) 20:17, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This photo was uploaded without my consent and infringes upon my privacy. As the owner and resident of the property, I have a reasonable expectation of privacy, which is violated by the public display of this image. I kindly ask for the prompt removal of this image to respect my privacy rights. 2001:1C02:1409:4800:ACD2:B423:B760:E001 09:17, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Panoramavrijheid. Pimvantend (talk) 12:03, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

While Panoramavrijheid allows for photographs taken from public spaces, this specific image does not fall under its protection. The object in question is not situated on a public road. The view captured in the photograph is only possible by photographing over the gate into a private garden, which is a clear violation of resident privacy. The reasonable expectation of privacy is infringed upon in this instance, making the image's display inappropriate and warranting its removal. 2001:1C02:1409:4800:A4E8:1252:68BD:73CB 11:19, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think they are not vali and sugreeva who are mythilogicL WHO ARE ONE OF HUMANID RACE SEEN IN RAMAYANA Baddu676 (talk) 09:41, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No freedom of panorama in Ecuador A1Cafel (talk) 10:20, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No freedom of panorama in Ecuador A1Cafel (talk) 10:20, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

three more calligraphy works

• File:YavarHamedaaniSign.png
• File:AnjomanadabiiranPouya L.jpg
• File:لگوی انجمن ادبی ایران طراح پویالطیفیان.jpg

HeminKurdistan (talk) 16:03, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unused low quality images of generic nature without any context on where this is or anything.

• File:Sarpanch 042.jpg
• File:Sarpanch 043.jpg
• File:Sarpanch 034.jpg

TheImaCow (talk) 11:20, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Weak delete. I think the deletion request makes perfect sense, but the three images are also an authentic example of (possibly undesirable) diffraction spikes in layman/candid photography and how they spontaneously change depending on the location of the light source. If kept, the images can be renamed and described as such. Sinigh (talk) 09:34, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

not useful, misgeneration Prototyperspective (talk) 11:21, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This file was initially tagged by Mayimbú as duplicate (Duplicate) and the most recent rationale was: Zéro de conduite (1933).webm|2=Cropped film without opening logos, restoration notes/credits and copyright notice.|3=Mayimbú  — billinghurst sDrewth 11:32, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Keep In use. Not the same length, so not a duplicate. In addition, File:Zéro de conduite (1933).webm was uploaded after this file, so if a duplicate, it is this last one. Yann (talk) 16:08, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Delete The {{PD-1996}} tag seems incorrect. Director Jean Vigo died in 1934 and composer Maurice Jaubert died in 1940, so it was not in the public domain in 1996, and URAA would have restored the U.S. copyright. hinnk (talk) 20:53, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that before 1996, the copyright term in France was 58 years. I am not sure why you mention Maurice Jaubert. Beside it may have been shown in USA at the time, and therefore copyright there wasn't restored. Yann (talk) 07:26, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I mention Jaubert because it's a sound film and France treats the director, writer(s), and composer as the presumed authors of an audiovisual work.

How are you arriving at the 58-year term? When I look at Commons:Copyright rules by territory/France, it suggests that the copyright term had been increased to life + 70 years in 1995, which would have extended the copyright shortly before the URAA restoration date. (Taking into account Jaubert's authorship would mean a 58-year term or 70-year term wouldn't make a difference, but it'd be good to make sure that explanation on that page is accurate and clear.) hinnk (talk) 08:25, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please see section "Historical terms": 50 + 8 years for war extensions. Yann (talk) 10:33, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, it was the 8-year wartime copyright extension that I was missing. Based on that, it seems like works co-authored by Maurice Jaubert would be copyrighted in 1996 using either term length, but works solely by Vigo would depend on which term is used, gonna move that question to Commons:Deletion requests/File:À propos de Nice (1930) par Jean Vigo.webm. hinnk (talk) 18:37, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Professional photo with no exif, i think we need VRT

• File:Georges Granville 4.jpg
• File:Georges Granville 3.jpg
• File:Georges Granville 2.jpg

Gbawden (talk) 11:32, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

•   Ticket:2024062210003186 has been received regarding to file(s) mentioned here. --Krdbot 12:00, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
•   I have just accepted permission for “File:Georges Granville 4.jpg” under ticket:2024062210003186. --Mussklprozz (talk) 09:03, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is a significant doubt on the attribution's accuracy. EXIF of File:Sugako Iwasaki 201511.jpg has detailed information with "TBSテレビ" as source, indicating that it was a third party work in 2011, not authored by the Japanese government in 2015. It's reasonable to assume the government was allowed to use it, but that doesn't mean we are.

This person wrote scripts for TBS for a long time, so it's not strange for someone at TBS to have taken pictures for her at some point in time, earlier than the 2015 decoration.

• File:Sugako Iwasaki 201511.jpg
• File:Sugako Iwasaki cropped 1 Sugako Iwasaki 201511.jpg
• File:Sugako Iwasaki cropped 2 Sugako Iwasaki 201511 (headshot).jpg
• File:Sugako Iwasaki cropped 2 Sugako Iwasaki 201511.jpg

whym (talk) 11:56, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

•   Keep This photo was posted the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology's website on November, 2015. Even if the author is Sugako Iwasaki's side (TBS, etc.), the publication is considered to have been made in agreement with the provision under the Government of Japan Standard Terms of Use Ver.2.0 (GJSTU-2.0).

1. When the GJSTU-2.0 were introduced, the government agencies scrutinized the content of its website and clarified the exemptions. If there is a separate creator of the content and the GJSTU-2.0 are not applicable, we will specify that (For example, "©宮内庁" in a photo posted on the Cabinet Office's website, "Photo by Taishi Hirokawa" in a photo of Kazuko Koike posted on the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology's website, etc.) or cancel the posting of photos that were posted before the terms were introduced (For example, removing a photo from the list of past the recipients of the Order of Culture and the Persons of Cultural Merit of the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology's website, etc.). Since the introduction of the GJSTU-2.0, if creator of the content don't consent to publication under the Terms of Use, the government agencies will withdraw the publication of photos (For example, Rei Kawakubo, whose photo was not posted on the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology's website, etc.).
2. On the other hand, this photos of Sugako Iwasaki mentioned above was published after the GJSTU-2.0 was introduced, and it is not clearly stated that the terms are not applicable. Even if the author is Sugako Iwasaki's side (TBS, etc.), the publication is considered to have been made in agreement with the provision under the license. This photos of Sugako Iwasaki posted on the list of the Persons of Cultural Merit of the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology's website. As previously mentioned, the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology scrutinized the content of its website and clarified the exemptions or cancel the posting of photos that were posted before the terms were introduced (For example, "Photo by Taishi Hirokawa" in a photo of Kazuko Koike was posted on the list of the Persons of Cultural Merit, a photo of Rei Kawakubo was not posted on the list of the Persons of Cultural Merit, photos posted before the GJSTU-2.0 removed from the past list of the Persons of Cultural Merit, etc.). Despite these efforts, the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology is even more careful and says that some photos posted its website before March 2014 might not state that third parties have rights. But this photos of Sugako Iwasaki was posted the list of its website on November, 2015.

The claim that "It's reasonable to assume the government was allowed to use it, but that doesn't mean we are." is merely a personal delusion and offers no concrete evidence. As a side note, the claim that "2015 decoration" is extremely inaccurate. Sugako Iwasaki was not awarded the order in 2015. Sugako Iwasaki received the certificate of the Persons of Cultural Merit in 2015. --Scanyaro (talk) 17:57, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• (Additional comment by nominator) I believe that in Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Yuriko Koike and Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Kaoru Sakura we concluded that we should not rely on the hypothesis that the government would have convinced the third-party to release the work under CC BY 4.0, when deciding whether to host it at Wikimedia Commons. This request belongs to the same category in my opinion. whym (talk) 12:11, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

•   Comment That means you can't show any concrete evidence. And the conclusions of the discussion about other images do not affect our discussion at all. --Scanyaro (talk) 16:36, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This file was initially tagged by Kirby凃 as Speedy (SD) and the most recent rationale was: G7  — billinghurst sDrewth 12:00, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This file was initially tagged by Kirby凃 as Speedy (SD) and the most recent rationale was: G1  — billinghurst sDrewth 12:00, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This file was initially tagged by Adinar0012 as Speedy (db) and the most recent rationale was: see https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Flag_of_Ukraine_(1992%E2%80%932006).svg  — billinghurst sDrewth 12:02, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is PD in Italy but since it was created in 1992 it is not PD in the US (see Template:Not-PD-US-URAA). Jaqen (talk) 12:52, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Delete This image is currently copyrighted in the US since it was published after the US entered the Berne Convtention. The template {{Not-PD-US-URAA}} cannot be used because its copyright was never restored, simply because it was never in the public domain in the US. Also, it should only be used in images uploaded before March 1, 2012. Günther Frager (talk) 15:16, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Published under a non-commercial no derivatives license. DrKay (talk) 13:04, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Commons accepts the specialised No 10 Flickr tag under which I uploaded it (and under which many other government photographs have been uploaded). For good measure I would also point out that on the Flickr page there is a "License history" button which shows that the photograph (and many others under the No 10 account) was originally published as CC BY 2.0. Robin S. Taylor (talk) 13:30, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Keep agree to keep since it was originally published under a CC-BY license and Commons accepts this license variant anyway. SDudley (talk) 14:48, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not at the time of upload to Commons. -- Asclepias (talk) 22:02, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Because it is nonsense, absolutely unusable in any article Gudyma s (talk) 13:10, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

unused after 12 years, I think we can dispense with it  — billinghurst sDrewth 13:38, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Delete per nom. Jonteemil (talk) 00:21, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Then {{Single namespace}} also should be deleted since it's using this template. It is however itself unused. And except that use, this template is unused as well. Jonteemil (talk) 00:23, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Out of scope. Private picture of presumably a hobby project in insufficient quality. Zinnmann (talk) 13:52, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what the previous deletion request was based on, but this is not an own work. 186.173.6.30 14:03, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The background is copyrighted, the museum logo is also copyrighted, needs license from the museum. PereslavlFoto (talk) 14:16, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I'll ask the museum for permission on Monday. — Виктор Пинчук (talk) 14:32, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In case of success, this will be the SECOND museum in whole Russia that allows free commercial reuse of its logo. --PereslavlFoto (talk) 15:05, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I can blur or remove the logo. In principle, I can also blur the ships below (but what will this document look like). — Виктор Пинчук (talk) 15:21, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Done — Виктор Пинчук (talk) 16:32, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There's a stone wall on this image. Blurred image will look like a copyvio as a derivative of some copyrighted work. --PereslavlFoto (talk) 16:58, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Per COM:FOP Japan. This photo was taken in Japan. It is likely that the woman is the subject, but a fairly large part of the photo also features the statue of Kenshiro from Fist of the North Star. IDCM (talk) 14:19, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

•   Keep the image has been cropped. Puramyun31 (talk) 09:44, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image widely-available on the internet [1], not clear if Fars is the copyright owner because it lacks the typical watermark or photographer credit, HeminKurdistan (talk) 14:25, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

مخالفة لشروط الموسوعة Webnetly (talk) 14:27, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not PD yet. Sound recordings have different rules. Undelete in 2028. SDudley (talk) 14:37, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not PD yet. Sound recordings have different rules. Undelete in 2028. SDudley (talk) 14:37, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

COM:COPYVIO, taken from social media, no indication of free license Quick-ease2020 (talk) 14:38, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Invading personal privacy, this is an ID card of a person related to a news event. Kcx36 (talk) 14:40, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And this photo should be downloaded from the Internet. Kcx36 (talk) 14:43, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This image is most likely copyrighted. Typically the costumes and set designs for opera/theatre are copyrighted by the designers in the same way paintings and other works of art are copyrighted. This means images from this 2013 production are likely copyrighted and require permission for publication. 4meter4 (talk) 14:55, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Этот файл - фрагмент из File:Aida-Il RE.jpg. А тот снимок сделан во время спектакля со сцены. Объектом является не костюм, поэтому АП его создателя не нарушены. -- Tomasina (talk) 06:39, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What is this? 186.173.53.58 15:10, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dosyamın silinmesini talep ediyorum. Şuan da yeni bir dosya yükleyeceğim ve silinmemesi yüzünden dosyanın revize edilmiş halini yükleyemiyorum. Atahan Kızılkaya (talk) 15:12, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Does this file exceed the COM:TOO for logos? Eureka Lott 15:16, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is this free, own work? 186.173.53.58 15:28, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Doesn't look like it. Calistemon (talk) 13:58, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Educational value is not shown. For example, this is not rainbow. Taivo (talk) 15:28, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Personal request manȷıro^💬 15:43, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ticket permission applies to photo only, no permission for depicted architecture Krd 15:46, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Keep As I told before and also easily is to be seen, this is "old architecture". I would be glad if ORTS members would check for themselves before doing such deleting requests. --Subbass1 (talk) 15:55, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Several hundred years old architecture it seems: w:de:St. Johannes (Castell). Nakonana (talk) 18:19, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, and Krd knows that, as I wrote him this already in the mail. And besides that: *he* has to check first, before starting such nonsense as OTRS member. Sorry, that doesn't look professional in any way. --Subbass1 (talk) 23:01, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Keep per Subbass1, its old architecture. It's in the PD. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 00:32, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Logo of non notable organization - out of scope. Wikidata item was just deleted, so no longer INUSE. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 15:51, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

•   Note to closing admin This image is the only image in its category, so please delete the category when you delete this image. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 15:54, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

no source that russia kgb released this as cc Tsipca Uerld (talk) 15:59, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

professional images of Estonian actor. Some of them are credited to Laura Pählapuu. Unlike that own works. VRT-permission from the creator/photographer is needed.

• File:ChristopherRajaveer.jpg
• File:C.Rajaveer.jpg
• File:Näitleja C. Rajaveer.jpg
• File:Näitleja Christopher Rajaveer.jpg
• File:Christopher Rajaveer.jpg

Estopedist1 (talk) 16:14, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Single uploading by the user. Small image, no EXIF-data. Unlike that own work. Deletion per COM:PCP Estopedist1 (talk) 16:24, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not selfies, so permission from the photographer is needed.

• File:Rawb Pitts playing guitar.jpg
• File:Nikki Pitts.jpg
• File:Ripped Pitts.jpg

Yann (talk) 16:31, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

•   Delete Per the nominator. --Adamant1 (talk) 11:10, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Author (c) photoMaldives.com Copyright holder (c) photoMaldives.com Yann (talk) 16:39, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Yann. I do not understand. Please explain your deletion request. SunnyMart (talk) 05:50, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@SunnyMart: See the EXIF data. Yann (talk) 08:38, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt31381548/mediaviewer/rm1154236673/?ref_=tt_md_2 Yann (talk) 16:44, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.facebook.com/photo/?fbid=405060549042565&set=pcb.405060585709228 Yann (talk) 17:29, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Er staan fouten in: er moet een nieuwe versie komen Verloren16 (talk) 17:43, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Error in recording - if possible re-upload else delete Elianfoo (talk) 18:14, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No proof of license from the author named Александр Артамонов. PereslavlFoto (talk) 18:22, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Descriptions says, the image is made by Игорь Давыдов who works for Российская газета. Needs proof of license from copyright holder. PereslavlFoto (talk) 18:23, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Photo published in the Argentine magazine El expreso imaginario in 1976. It is currently in the public domain in its country of origin (25 years after publication). But it was not in 1996 at URAA time. Thus, it is still copyrighted in the US. Following COM:PCP we cannot keep this image. Günther Frager (talk) 18:25, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Gardel's photo was taken by Uruguayan photographer José María Silva [2] and it is still copyrighted in Uruguay, see Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Fotos de José María Silva. Günther Frager (talk) 18:47, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is no freedom of panorama for 2D artworks in Argentina. Günther Frager (talk) 18:57, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It may be in the public domain in Italy (20 years after creation), but any photo, like this one, published after March 1, 1989 is automatically copyrighted in the US due to Berne Convention. Günther Frager (talk) 19:43, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Indecent exposure, copia..jpg

Works apparently by Mária Szánthó, a Hungarian artist. Some of her early works may be PD in the US, but none will be PD in Hungary until 2069. Prosfilaes (talk) 19:45, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This file was initially tagged by Günther Frager as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: Not own work, found on https://www.flickr.com/photos/symphno1/39970203001/in/pool-symphno1/ All rights reserved Commons image is older and bigger. Yann (talk) 19:51, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This file was initially tagged by Günther Frager as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: Not own work, found on https://www.flickr.com/photos/symphno1/25118138197/in/album-72157692783366225/ All right reserved Commons image is older and bigger, and has no watermark. Yann (talk) 19:52, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is an scan of a photo owned by the uploader, but they don't know the photographer. As this was published after 1993, it is still copyrighted in the US due to Berne Convention. Günther Frager (talk) 19:58, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This file was initially tagged by Denniss as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: scan of an 1930s image/postcard does not make it own work May be old enough. Yann (talk) 19:59, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mir liegt das Bild im Original vor - aber wenn das nicht reicht ist es o.k. Torsten1073 (talk) 22:01, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Torsten1073: Please fix the source, date, author, and license. Yann (talk) 08:31, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Daniele Berretta played professionally between 1990 and 2005. Any image taken in Italy during this period is copyrighted in the US due to Berne Convention. Günther Frager (talk) 20:16, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No proof that the photo was released as CC0, only statement is "Deze afbeelding is vrij beschikbaar voor hergebruik. " which isn't an release and fails Commons:Project scope/Precautionary principle Multichill (talk) 21:11, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

More if not all photos in Category:Photographs by Frans Busselman are affected by this. We need either a proper release or delete them all. Multichill (talk) 21:12, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

•   Keep per nom. Replace CC0 with {{attribution} as has been subject of discussion in the previous five years or so. -- Mdd (talk) 22:02, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, I see no valid release. You can't just upload a bunch of photos and claim some license that is not in the source. Multichill (talk) 15:35, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly exceeds COM:TOO. Per COM:TOO France French TOO is unclear with some courts calling it low and others high so we should err on the side of caution * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 21:59, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly exceeds COM:TOO * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:00, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly exceeds COM:TOO * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:01, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly not "own work", possibly exceeds COM:TOO * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:03, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Pppery: « not "own work" » can be correct and I'm not sure about TOO. The logo is quite simple (few colours, few lines). Also, this logo has a lot of variation stored on Commons, we need to be consistent about it. Cheers, VIGNERON (talk) 07:03, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See also the recent relevant discussion Commons:Deletion requests/File:Logo visuels PS.png. SCP-2000 14:32, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly exceeds COM:TOO * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:06, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

not PD in the US Generalissima (talk) 22:47, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment "not PD in the US": Wiki needs a European Commons. Vysotsky (talk) 20:29, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Delete (but also see below,   Delete because of the URAA) The {{PD-anon-70-EU}} tag used for the file is not correct for a UK photograph. It's not even clear if the conditions for {{PD-UK-unknown}} ("reasonable enquiry", see tag) are met. That a web site where the photo was taken from does not name an author/photographer does not mean that that person is "unknown" or "anonymous" in a legal sense. Delete per the precautionary principle. --Rosenzweig τ 23:06, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Keep Original photo can be found here at Oxford. Gillman & Soame (since 1856) made dozens of photographs at Somerville College, but apparently not this one, as their database doesn't hold this photograph. I also didn't find the photo in other photographic databases or company websites. So after "reasonable enquiry": {{PD-UK-unknown}}. -- Vysotsky (talk) 08:50, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've written this in other deletion requests and will repeat it here: What exactly is "reasonable enquiry", when was enough enquiry done? Considering the fact that the current British copyright act is from 1988, from before the invention of the World Wide Web, it seems reasonable to assume that a quick internet search (or even less) is not what the lawmakers had in mind when they wrote "reasonable enquiry". You would have needed to consult books, make telephone calls, write letters etc. to enquire about who an author would be. If you can find out the author these days by a quick internet search, fine. But if you cannot, shouldn't you try to exhaust some conventional resources too? Records? Literature? Given these considerations, I don't think there was enough enquiry done here to declare the author to be "unknown". --Rosenzweig τ 11:22, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am a librarian. I also checked 5 books and 7 articles from and about Philippa Foot, and didn't find any reference to the photographer. I guess that is "what the lawmakers had in mind when they wrote 'reasonable enquiry' ". Vysotsky (talk) 13:33, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would expect such information at Somerville College, any serious enquiry should include asking them. They apparently have the print, they probably also have information about the photographer. Asking the school got results for a school photo of Alan Turing a while ago. Researching such things would be the uploader's job btw. --Rosenzweig τ 16:48, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Keep I agree that a "reasonable enquiry" has been made, Tineye searched 15 billion images. No matter how many rocks you look under, someone will always argue there is one more rock to look under. --RAN (talk) 09:22, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You may have asked a web service to search under 15 billion rocks, which is possible in 2024 but cannot have been what the lawmakers intended in 1988. But the most obvious rock which I mentioned apparently was ignored so far. --Rosenzweig τ 09:37, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Already asked. No answer as yet. Vysotsky (talk)

• You are correct that in 1988 you were not expected to compare the image to 15 billion images. What we have done has exceeded the 1988 concept of "reasonable enquiry". --RAN (talk) 10:54, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, not exceeded, just used aditional forms of research which were not available then. --Rosenzweig τ 10:43, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No one voting keep has demonstrated how this is PD in the US. Snowmanonahoe (talk) 20:22, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's simple: It is not. --Rosenzweig τ 11:09, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment I had an interesting correspondence with Somerville College Archives. They said: "The one from our archives, labelled matriculation photo, is the 1939 photograph (just a small group of students, including Philippa Foot)." The photo was supposedly made by Gillman and Soame (though not on their website, and according to Somerville College not in the G&M collection). When asked about copyright, they said that they were "not permitted to advise, but you might find this guidance from The National Archives useful: https://cdn.nationalarchives.gov.uk/documents/information-management/non-crown-copyright-flowchart.pdf". Copyright UK? According to this chart the way clearly leads to the box "copyright expires 70 years after first publication" - {{PD-UK-unknown}}. -- Vysotsky (talk) 19:28, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your research and the update. I've looked up that company. Founded in 1856, they picked up photography a bit later and have over 100 employees these days. But even if we accept that there was no easily recognizable single photographer in 1939 and PD-Unknown therefore applies in the UK, the photograph still would have been protected by UK copyright in 1996 and is therefore still protected by US copyright today, as mentioned in rationale for this DR. Therefore still   Delete and restore the file in 2035. --Rosenzweig τ 09:25, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]