Commons:Deletion requests/2024/09/04

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search

September 4

[edit]

This image is reshared from media sources protected by copyright, including the w:Lansing State Journal,[1] w:Detroit Free Press,[2] and possibly others.

It was taken by Bill Bouwman in the United States in 2023.

It was uploaded to Commons under the rationale that Bouwman was a US federal government employee performing his duties, although there was no evidence supplied for this.

There is no claim that this image is ineligible for copyright for any other reason.

As a photo taken in the United States after 1989, copyright came into being as soon as the image was made.

The uploader later changed the rationale to those expressed in the {{PD-NWS}} template at the time; that

  1. when the weather.gov general disclaimer says that material not in the public domain will be specifically noted, it means that it must be published with a formal copyright notice. Whereas in reality, not only has the NWS never promised any specific form of notation, there is ample evidence to demonstrate this is not their general practice. This belief also chooses to ignore the words elsewhere in the disclaimer that state that third party images are used by the NWS under license, and to contact the third-party creators for re-use.
  2. the words of a NWS Sioux City regional office policy that placed some public submissions in the public domain somehow applied to this image, although there is nothing to connect it with that office. (The still was published by the Detroit office).

Without clearer evidence that Bouwman intended to place this image in the public domain, we need to delete this under COM:PRP. Rlandmann (talk) 01:27, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]



PRP Delete per @Rlandmann Hurricane Clyde 🌀my talk page! 18:15, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Since this discussion seems to be rather inactive: will do courtesy pings to recent editors in these discussions. More could follow: @WeatherWriter @ChessEric @Sir MemeGod @Jmabel @Hurricanehink @GeorgeMemulous @Berchanhimez @Consigned Hurricane Clyde 🌀my talk page! 21:20, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Delete This is an unusual vote from me, but my rationale is that it came from other copyrighted sources before the NWS got to it. ChessEric (talk) 01:58, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This file was initially tagged by Sahaib as no permission (No permission) Krd 03:32, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This file was initially tagged by Sahaib as no permission (No permission) Krd 03:32, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Photo credit should read: Jonathan Hordle/PA Media Assignments, not FCDO's work A1Cafel (talk) 05:02, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep Like the other photos in this category, which are almost all from the same source. HaT59 (talk) 09:03, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

uploaded as own work, but image appears eg. here https://inplaymusicschool.com/aleksei-vyzhanov/ DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:54, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No FoP for 2D works in Japan メイド理世 (talk) 05:56, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]


No FoP for 3D works in Japan メイド理世 (talk) 05:57, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]


No FoP for 3D works in the United States メイド理世 (talk) 06:02, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]


No FoP for 2D works in Argentina A1Cafel (talk) 06:04, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! This was discussed already several times..there are works commissioned by the city government and they release them in CC. Cheers! Mauricio V. Genta (talk) 17:07, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The license only applies to photo itself, not the artwork. --A1Cafel (talk) 04:18, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
They do in these cases, because the own the artwork. We got this confirmed with VTRS and the head of communications of the goverment in the past. Mauricio V. Genta (talk) 13:30, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Personal photo: out of the scope of the project Michel Bakni (talk) 06:51, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Personal photo: out of the scope of the project Michel Bakni (talk) 06:52, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

copyright issue Mickey Đại Phát (talk) 07:53, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Likely recent and thereby still copyrighted work of art. Unfortunately, France has no freedom-of-panorama exception. -- Túrelio (talk) 07:59, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Same problem with:


Depicted sculpture likely recent and still in copyright. Unfortunately, Japan has no freedom-of-panorama exception for such works. So, a permission by the sculptor is need or the image needs to be deleted. -- Túrelio (talk) 09:33, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Same problem with:

Image delete Romanmalikkhan (talk) 16:49, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You need to provide a reason for deletion. Nakonana (talk) 19:32, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Actually there's already a deletion discussion on that file here: Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Romanmalikkhan. I don't know why the uploader removed the initial nomination just to re-nominate the files for deletion. Nakonana (talk) 19:39, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Unclear copyright status Fenikals (talk) 10:39, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unclear copyright status Fenikals (talk) 10:41, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unclear copyright status Fenikals (talk) 10:42, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unclear copyright status Fenikals (talk) 10:43, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unclear copyright status Fenikals (talk) 10:43, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The flag is incorrect, The Empire of Japan uses the Hinomaru flag as it does today but it only became Japan’s national flag back in 1999. The army ensign should not be used as the flag of The Empire of Japan. The army flag is the Army ensign: NOT THE NATIONAL FLAG. RepublicOfKorea1945 (talk) 11:03, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've added an accuracy disputed tag. Nakonana (talk) 19:50, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Files in Category:Toy Story exhibitions

[edit]

Concept art and models created by Pixar for the Toy Story films, shown in a museum exhibit. All of these works are copyrighted.

The Casper doll is estimated to be from the 1960's and is still under copyright, per COM:TOYS

--ReneeWrites (talk) 11:15, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete. Flickr license is invalid; there's no reason to believe the artistic works in the photos are freely licensed. Omphalographer (talk) 00:35, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

bad quality, image motif available several times in good quality MeAmME (talk) 12:31, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Possible copyright infringement Zlanek (talk) 12:54, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Possible copyright infringement Zlanek (talk) 12:59, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Possible copyright infringement Zlanek (talk) 13:00, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Personal photo without educational value Fenikals (talk) 13:10, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Derivate works. I doubt the Flickr account owns the copyright of the original works.

Yann (talk) 13:25, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source channel looks like a random YouTube channel, which uploads random videos. But the video copyright holder is Bolivar TV, maybe this YouTube channel is the main copyright holder, where I can't see any cc license in any of their videos. –TANBIRUZZAMAN (💬) 13:28, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unclear copyright status Fenikals (talk) 13:34, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This file was initially tagged by Moumou82 as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: found on https://tineye.com/search/02d3cb37165e7f95761e9694474392ba1e5e79a5?sort=size&order=desc&page=1 Yann (talk) 13:44, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Stamps in Russia are exempt from copyright only in its entirety. When those are cropped, they become covered by copyright protection. For example, see Commons:Deletion requests/File:Oleg Dahl Postal card Russia 2016cr.jpg. 92.243.182.19 14:32, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

copyrighted material, unfree license 2A01:C23:B997:A800:3933:AF2A:8569:63E9 14:54, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Delete - File was requested for a rename, but the reason was not good. So now I also see it is possibly copyrighted.. I say: delete. The user just reverted all my declines.. Should be blocked, but I'm not gonna do that. - Inertia6084 (talk) (talk) 17:22, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This file was initially tagged by DragonflySixtyseven as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: per Commons:Deletion requests/File:Dog faces off with an angry opossum - Flickr - simpleinsomnia.jpg , images attributed to the SimpleInsomnia flickr account have no provenance and their copyright status cannot be ascertained Юрий Д.К 14:56, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • There is a calendar on the picture. Year not visible but it has been taken in September or November with 24th belongs to Sunday. Maybe someone can clarify of date of creation. If not then delete. Юрий Д.К 15:58, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This file was initially tagged by DragonflySixtyseven as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: Per Commons:Deletion requests/File:Dog faces off with an angry opossum - Flickr - simpleinsomnia.jpg Yann (talk) 15:44, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1945 picture could be in the public domain. Yann (talk) 15:45, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Per the previous DR, nothing from the SimpleInsomnia Flickr account has provenance. It's all "found photos", which might as well be "unidentified photo albums that I bought for $5 on eBay". Even if it's from 1945, what else do we know about it? DS (talk) 12:27, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The image is not signed, and it is scanned from a print, so the publication started when leaving the photographer's custody. Yann (talk) 13:00, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Uploaded a new version of it. HaWUG swot analysis1.jpg Em-mustapha (talk) 15:48, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

도촬한 파일입니다. 그래서 삭제 처리합니다. 211.186.86.62 16:02, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

도촬된 파일입니다. 그래서 삭제 처리합니다. 앙미자 (talk) 16:03, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
User:앙미자, explain what you mean by a thief. Where was the image stolen from? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:29, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is absolutely no basis for unauthorized photography. It's just a compilation of photos taken legally by someone else. -- Sangjinhwa (talk) 05:00, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

도촬 아닙니다. 고려 사용자가 합법적으로 촬영한 사진을 편집한 것일 뿐입니다. -- Sangjinhwa (talk) 22:09, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep There is absolutely no reason to delete it. -- Sangjinhwa (talk) 06:32, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Who is..? 186.173.22.81 16:27, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This guy it seems: w:en:Bob Delle Bovi. Nakonana (talk) 20:32, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Map with a dubious US Gov license (description even notes a Smithsonian Institute copyright). Abzeronow (talk) 17:36, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

presumingly COPYVIO, asking for 2nd opinion

Herzi Pinki (talk) 18:02, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am afraid but we will need to delete these photos because they depict artworks by a living artist.

Gnom (talk) 07:21, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep for

--Herzi Pinki (talk) 08:42, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is the text in these images really below the threshold of orginality? Gnom (talk) 07:12, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The object is in the public domain, but the photo is copyrighted by the Boston Museum of Fine Arts. The uploader has assigned an invalid CC0 license. Per the museum's Terms of Use, downloaded photos may be used "for limited non-commercial, educational, and personal use only, or for fair use as defined in the United States copyright laws. ... COPYING OR REDISTRIBUTION IN ANY MANNER FOR COMMERCIAL USE, INCLUDING COMMERCIAL PUBLICATION, OR FOR PERSONAL GAIN IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED." (caps in the original). The object is a 3D sculpture, so PD-Art does not apply. This user has been previously warned about uploading copyrighted images from museum web sites. Crawdad Blues (talk) 18:22, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files uploaded by Hamedfire (talk · contribs)

[edit]

Not own works, no evidence of a free license.

Yann (talk) 18:36, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files uploaded by Kia0088 (talk · contribs)

[edit]

unclear state of license.  Delete

modern_primat ඞඞඞ ----TALK 13:42, 16 August 2024 (UTC) 20:17, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Abolhassan Banisadr portrait 1980.jpg File:Abolhassan Bani Sadr 1980.jpg is duplicate. modern_primat ඞඞඞ ----TALK 13:42, 16 August 2024 (UTC) 20:17, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This image was taken in 2022 by Jim or Dylan LaDue in the United States. Unless ineligible for copyright for some reason, photos taken in the United States since March 1, 1989 are protected by copyright from the instant they are taken.

It was uploaded to commons with the rationale that the photographer was an employee of the US federal government performing their duties, but without any evidence provided for this claim.

There is no claim that the image is ineligible for copyright for any other reason.

The uploader updated the rationale to that expressed in the {{PD-NWS}} template at the time: that the image is covered by the site disclaimer for weather.gov and/or the submission guidelines for the Sioux City NWS office.

This file is not hosted on weather.gov, so the disclaimer for that site does not appear to apply, and there is no evidence to connect it with the Sioux City office image submission guidelines, so this rationale does not appear to apply either.

There are no grounds to think this is a free image. Rlandmann (talk) 22:43, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]


 Delete per @Rlandmann and precautionary principle. Hurricane Clyde 🌀my talk page! 18:16, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Breached copyright - I did not have permission to share this image Brady.dyer (talk) 22:55, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Offensichtliche Fehllizenzierung: Als Urheber wird die Stiftung Forum Recht angegeben, das ist aber nicht möglich, da Urheber immer nur eine natürliche Person , nicht aber eine Organisation sein kann

Obvious mislicensing: The Stiftung Forum Recht is stated as the author, but this is not possible, as the author can only ever be a natural person, not an organisation Lutheraner (talk) 23:06, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This image was taken in 2023 by Jessica Kellogg in the United States. Unless ineligible for copyright for some reason, photos taken in the United States since March 1, 1989 are protected by copyright from the instant they are taken.

It was uploaded to Commons with the rationale that the photographer was an employee of the US federal government performing their duties, but without any evidence provided for this claim.

There is no claim that the image is ineligible for copyright for any other reason.

The uploader updated the rationale to that expressed in the {{PD-NWS}} template at the time: that the image is covered by the site disclaimer for weather.gov and/or the submission guidelines for the Sioux City NWS office.

This file is not hosted on weather.gov, so the disclaimer for that site does not appear to apply, and there is no evidence to connect it with the Sioux City office image submission guidelines, so this rationale does not appear to apply either.

There are no grounds to think this is a free image. Rlandmann (talk) 23:08, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]



 Delete per @Rlandmann. Hurricane Clyde 🌀my talk page! 18:15, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This photo is unclear and isn't taken properly. Garetty65 (talk) 23:10, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]


This photo isn't clear and has bad quality Garetty65 (talk) 23:14, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]