Commons:Deletion requests/2024/12/07

6 December 2024

8 December 2024

Deletion requests on 7 December 2024

December 7

File:Logo afp capital.jpg

The actual Sura logo maintains a level of complexity that reaches COM:TOO, but has been reduced by the discrete file size. Taichi (talk) 01:14, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep COM:TOO Chile isn't helpful, but the map on COM:TOO has Chile as "OK", so I'm not convinced the thingie in the bottom right corner is complex enough. Queen of Hearts (talk) 16:28, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:AFP Capital Logo.jpg

The actual Sura logo maintains a level of complexity that reaches COM:TOO, but has been reduced by the discrete file size. Taichi (talk) 01:14, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Special:GoToComment/c-Queen_of_Hearts-20241213162800-Taichi-20241207011400 Queen of Hearts (talk) 16:30, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:AFP Integra.jpg

The actual Sura logo maintains a level of complexity that reaches COM:TOO, but has been reduced by the discrete file size. Taichi (talk) 01:27, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Special:GoToComment/c-Queen_of_Hearts-20241213162800-Taichi-20241207011400 Queen of Hearts (talk) 16:30, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:AFP Habitat.jpg

The design on the left maintains a level of complexity that could be approaching COM:TOO. Taichi (talk) 01:31, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Special:GoToComment/c-Queen_of_Hearts-20241213162800-Taichi-20241207011400 Queen of Hearts (talk) 16:31, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Association Sportive des PTT (logo).png

This file was initially tagged by Εὐθυμένης as no source (No source since) Krd 05:45, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:FC 1904 DAC Dunajská streda logo.png

This file was initially tagged by Εὐθυμένης as no source (No source since) Krd 05:47, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Gezira SC NewCrest ByMòRo.jpg

This file was initially tagged by Εὐθυμένης as no source (No source since) Krd 05:47, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:LA Giltinis.png

This file was initially tagged by Εὐθυμένης as no source (No source since) Krd 05:47, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Probably under COM:TOO US, don't you think? If not, why not? User:Εὐθυμένης, are you checking which country's COM:TOO is at issue? Please do, before you request deletion. It's a lot of work to check all of these nominations. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:15, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Luca SC.jpg

This file was initially tagged by Εὐθυμένης as no source (No source since) Krd 05:47, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Should be good per COM:TOO India, considering that "India seems to have a similar threshold of originality as the US Courts, called Modicum of Creativity, and this is definitely below COM:TOO US. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:17, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:サトニイ宣材写真、赤羽ガード下にて。.jpg

This file was initially tagged by 1.33.123.150 as no source (No source since) Krd 05:57, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source is given as "Own work," the file is not small, and lack of EXIF is not a deletion reason by itself per COM:DR. So though an admin might delete "per nom," that's not what COM:DR says, and you should give an additional reason. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:18, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Source is listed as own work, no reason to believe that isn't true. Dmartin969 (talk) 08:30, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There might be a reason, but the deletion requester hasn't given one. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:33, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Protest march in response to the Philando Castile shooting blurred.jpg

Useless copy of File:Protest march in response to the Philando Castile shooting (28084964251).jpg. Actually I don't understand the meaning of this blurry effect and that's why I'm putting the file up for deletion discussion. איז「Ysa」 • For love letters and other notes 06:08, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:DC Capitol Storming IMG 7942 blurred.jpg

Useless copy of File:DC Capitol Storming IMG 7942.jpg. Actually I don't understand the meaning of this blurry effect and that's why I'm putting the file up for deletion discussion. איז「Ysa」 • For love letters and other notes 06:10, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:RVA Pro Gun Rally 2020-7 (49418873543) blurred.jpg

Useless copy of File:RVA Pro Gun Rally 2020-7 (49418873543).jpg. Actually I don't understand the meaning of this blurry effect and that's why I'm putting the file up for deletion discussion. איז「Ysa」 • For love letters and other notes 06:11, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:2017.03.04 Pro-Trump Rallies Washington, DC USA 00360 (33211221516) cropped blurred.jpg

Useless copy of File:2017.03.04 Pro-Trump Rallies Washington, DC USA 00360 (33211221516) cropped.jpg. Actually I don't understand the meaning of this blurry effect and that's why I'm putting the file up for deletion discussion. איז「Ysa」 • For love letters and other notes 06:13, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Black bloc at RNC running blurred.jpg

Useless copy of File:Black bloc at RNC running.jpg. Actually I don't understand the meaning of this blurry effect and that's why I'm putting the file up for deletion discussion. איז「Ysa」 • For love letters and other notes 06:14, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:7nov1990Mensk e.jpg

The 1990 work is not in the public domain. And it's probably not his work. Incall ^talk 06:18, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The uploader did not claim that the image is in the public domain. It's licensed as cc-by-sa-3.0. And what's the reason to doubt the own work claim? If the uploader is around 50 years old or older they could have easily taken the photo themselves. Nakonana (talk) 18:46, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:United nations syria 60733 c0-221-1874-1313 s885x516.jpg

Not own work, no authorisation from source. Incall ^talk 06:21, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Koda Kumi for Vogue, 2024.jpg

Not uploaded by copyright owner; screenshot taken from Vogue YouTube video (URL in description) DC-wkm (talk) 06:23, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep Video was uploaded to YouTube under CC-BY. Dmartin969 (talk) 08:32, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Óscar Míguez y Pelé.png

Óscar Míguez died in 2006, so the photo could not have been taken in 2024. Origin and license unclear. Graf Foto (talk) 09:17, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note This paywalled article says the photo is from w:El Comercio (Peru), taken on 18 February 1960. According to COM:PERU#Simple_photographs, {{PD-Peru-photo}} could apply here. Joofjoof (talk) 23:31, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
See the full photo. Joofjoof (talk) 03:08, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Plantel Campeón Uruguayo 1958..jpg

The photo is from 1958, so it cannot have been taken in 2022. Origin and license unclear. Graf Foto (talk) 09:19, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Sam-houston-st logo from NCAA.svg

After consultation at the village pump, I decided to nominate the logo so the claw figure could be above the TOO. Fma12 (talk) 09:36, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Revista Renacer N.º 2 1938 Hitler.jpg

Drawing published as the cover of a Spanish magazine in 1939. It has a signature so, it cannot be considered anonymous. The author is not specify in the file, so it might be in its country of origin (up to 1987 protection was 80 years pma), but it won't be in the US due to URAA. The CC-BY probably comes from the BNE terms and condition [1], but it is only applicable to works in the public domain «Por tanto, y salvo que se especifique expresamente lo contrario, las imágenes en dominio público que se encuentren en el dominio bne.es están bajo una licencia de Reconocimiento CC-BY 4.0 o equivalente.». Günther Frager (talk) 10:10, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per [2], the illustrator signing as Guillermo was Guillermo Pérez Baylo (1911–2000). The file can be restored in 2071. --Rosenzweig τ 22:08, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Lu y Ngò.jpg

Because it is not useful in providing information. It used to be linked to the Lu y phan van ngo page on viwiki, but the page was quickly deleted because it was a test page. Cát trắng (talk) 10:34, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Graffiti in Rajshahi after July revolution capture by Manik 30.jpg

There is no FOP for 2D artworks (like Graffiti) in Bangladesh, this file has no place on Commons Poco a poco (talk) 10:38, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep see this Commons:Village pump/Copyright/Archive/2024/09#Bangladesh 茅野ふたば (talk) 11:17, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What about it? Per discussion on that thread, there may be no FoP at all in Bangladesh. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:40, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Graffiti in Rajshahi after July revolution capture by Manik 02.jpg

There is no FOP for 2D artworks (like Graffiti) in Bangladesh, this file has no place on Commons Poco a poco (talk) 10:38, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Info COM:FOP Bangladesh --PantheraLeo1359531 😺 (talk) 10:49, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep see this Commons:Village pump/Copyright/Archive/2024/09#Bangladesh 茅野ふたば (talk) 11:17, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So it apparently must be deleted. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:41, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Apparently, the file is a derivative work of street art, not graffiti. There was no freedom of panorama for 2D artworks in the 2000 copyright law. However, a new copyright law enacted in 2023 is currently in effect. There is a big possibility that there is no freedom of panorama in the new law altogether as per the discussion previously mentioned. Therefore, the file should be deleted taking the precautionary principle into consideration. Syrus257 (talk) 14:50, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:臺灣電力株式會社社長宿舍 6691.jpg

Better version: File:臺灣電力株式會社社長宿舍6692.jpg Solomon203 (talk) 10:56, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ruben Selles.jpg

Blatant copyright violation, see professional quality. Exact image is syndicated here [3] and credited to Marc Atkins of Getty Images Unknown Temptation (talk) 11:12, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Trafalgar Square 2022 vc.jpg

Per Commons:Deletion requests/File:'The End' on The Fourth Plinth, Trafalgar Square.jpg and the note at Category:Fourth plinth, Trafalgar Square, sculptures on this site are temporary so COM:FOP UK does not apply. Belbury (talk) 11:59, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ciairo.jpg

low quality, uncategorized photograph of a picture on a smartphone Ivanbranco (talk) 12:27, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Judith Forest.png

I removed this from the article . AI image created to illustrate a hoax author, but there is absolutely no relation between the prompt and the subject of the article. Any random image of a woman would be equally [in]accurate. This is outside of COM:SCOPE. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 12:33, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Squirrel Conspiracy,

the picture used for the Judith Forest portrait is not a picture generated by AI, but a picture traited by AI, as explained when uploading the picture in WikiMedia.

This picture is based on the picture of the comedian who played Judith Forest on television (Arte (vimeo.com/la5ecouche/1h25-arte) and France 3 (vimeo.com/la5ecouche/1h25-fr3). This picture is used for years as a profile picture on Forest Facebook (facebook.com/judithforest).

You do as you wish, but it is not an arbitrary picture.

Best,

William William Henne (talk) 13:21, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not in scope. Iwaqarhashmi (talk) 15:05, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's in scope as an illustration of a specific actress who was apparently part of the hoax, now that the uploader has told us this.

Is it COM:DERIV, though, if the uploader took a specific copyrighted television news clip (or a selected frame from it, or a different photograph of her?) and asked an AI to redraw the person in an "18th century portrait" style? Belbury (talk) 19:24, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Souleymane Diebate .jpg

unused, uncategorized personal picture of non-contributor Ivanbranco (talk) 12:42, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Nicole Luisoni (52524729432).jpg

The person in the photo is no longer a model and wants to delete all trace of such role, as it is impacting her personal life. Anyulrivas (talk) 12:44, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep First, the photographer and flickr user licensed this photos as CC-BY 2.0 (the "authorisation of the photographer"), attested by flickreview, so, no, this photos are freely licensed, as CC licenses are irrevocable, and so the photographer can stop distributing them, but cannot stop others, that have used them under that license, from keep them in "public domain" (not public domain by CC but the argument stands). This photos were made in a nude photography workshop in Barcelona ("Taller de fotografía de desnudo, Barcelona" in spanish), made with a nude photography model, as per this context. Second, this is a case of a model posing, willingly to a workshop of nude photography, not of some sneaky photographer. Also, keep before per Commons:Deletion_requests/Archive/2023/06/19#Files_in_Category:Nicole_Luisoni. As i already said in Commons:Deletion requests/Category:Nicole Luisoni, if it is having such an impact on a model life, then, maybe, the original photographer shouldnt have slapped the name and (possibly other data) about the model, in the first place. Yet, if it is really having an impact, that could be easily solved by changing the filenames of this model photos to something non personal, albeit keeping that info that this photos were taking by a boudoir photographer (the name of the photographer? and were taking during a nude photography workshop in Barcelona ("Taller de fotografía de desnudo, Barcelona" in spanish). Tm (talk) 12:58, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all of Category:Nicole Luisoni and its content. Wikidata too.

It seems credible that the model here has retired and they are trying to remove their footprint of images. Yes, the licensing here is irrevocable and so Commons is entitled to continue to host these. However that is not the same as Commons being required to host them. Nor is it part of Commons' role to be needlessly vindictive to any model.

Removing these entirely from the web is unlikely to be successful and certainly not easy. But it's not our job to make it any harder. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:20, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A better solution, as the deletion requester as already agreed with above, given that the CC licenses are irrevocable and this files were all kept previously per Commons:Deletion_requests/Archive/2023/06/19#Files_in_Category:Nicole_Luisoni, as i said above, if it is really having an impact, could be easily solved by changing the filenames of this model photos to something non personal, albeit keeping that info that this photos were taking by a boudoir photographer (the name of the photographer? and were taking during a nude photography workshop in Barcelona ("Taller de fotografía de desnudo, Barcelona" in spanish). The category in Commons and renaming to anonymised filenames can be processed easily but the Wikidata item would need a separate, on Wikidata, process. Tm (talk) 17:19, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I see no way in which that would be 'better'. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:25, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Per the comments of the user (that says to be the photographer and ergo the copyright holder" that opened this same deletion request, in Commons:Deletion requests/Category:Nicole Luisoni where he said "Thank you for your consideration. I'll modify the filename so the model name no longer appears there. Some models prefer to use an alias, and others prefer to use their real name. This is the first time this happened to me with all the models I worked with so far. I have no problem with keeping the photographer info and the context they were taken.", i.e. the filens can be kept and the filenames changed to anonimized filenames, altough i said that he shouldnt do that, and let others, after the closure do that, specially given that the Wikidata item involves a different and separate process in Wikidata itself, not here. Tm (talk) 01:43, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm somewhat sympathetic to a model who wants to retire, but the fact is, she can retire by stopping working like anyone else. If she had posed nude for paintings, would you call for their destruction or try to tell the artist to rename the compositions? People who model for publication know that the images are forever. Changing the filenames to deemphasize the identity of the model is more than generous. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:47, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per courtesy; the photo is unused. Ankry (talk) 00:12, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello im the person in the pictures , please i beg you to help me , ive been sending you a lots of emails ,this shoudnt be published the photographer didnt protect the pictures i dont know how this end here , im having harassment situations because of this at my work, please delate my name and the pictures , i dont want to live like this, with this its been harder, i need your empathy and help please..

i beg you to delete the folder please Shalalalom (talk) 08:32, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If there are such problems, so I don't think we should keep these. Unfortunately. Юрий Д.К 08:44, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please its me i beeg you to delate it , please delate my name and pictures , maybe for you is just pictures but for me its my hole life , im completly expose im suffering a lot , please help me Nicolepleasehelpme (talk) 18:11, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:C2002 V1 (NEAT) from SOHO-LASCO on 2003-02-18.jpg

SOHO is a joint NASA-ESA mission, so PD-NASA doesn't apply. Unfortunately SOHO's images copyright status continous to be vague as fas as commercial use is concerned [4] and previous discussion's of SOHO's image resulted in the deletion of them (eg. Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:SOHO images). C messier (talk) 12:46, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Motherboard manual (1315607814).jpg

copyrighted motherboard manual. Solomon203 (talk) 13:07, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I don't see anything above the threshold of originality in this picture. - Jmabel ! talk 17:34, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Me neither. What do you think could be above COM:TOO US, User:Solomon203? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:49, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
ASUS VL/ISA-486SV2 motherboard manual. Solomon203 (talk) 11:02, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In other words, you think the entire motherboard design could be above Com:TOO US. Could you explain more specifically how it's more complex than the examples on that page of designs that were found by the U.S. government not to be copyrightable? Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:20, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Klaasohm.jpg

The original uploader S.schwarz wiki is probably not the photographer G.Meyer. Missing permission. Didym (talk) 13:27, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Was für ein unnötiger LA. Das Bild ist seit 16 Jahren im Artikel, der Uploader hat vermutlich nicht besser zu beschreiben gewusst und nichts wird durch eine Löschung gewonnen, oder verbessert und einen wirtschaftlichen Wert, der den Urheber benachteiligen könnte hat das Werk nun auch nicht. Da gibt es im Internet bessere. Itti (talk) 15:39, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Die Tatsache, dass das Problem bisher niemand aufgefallen ist, ändert nichts daran, dass auch zum Hochladezeitpunkt schon eine Freigabe erforderlich gewesen wäre. Sonderregeln würden nur für vor 2007 hochgeladene Dateien gelten, also hier nicht. --Didym (talk) 23:23, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

aha, 2008 ist demzufolge zu neu? Der User hat auch noch http://www.insel-fotos.de/html/klaasohm.html in einem Edit als in der Zusammenfassungszeile angegeben. Leider ist das Archiv unvollständig, ich sehe nur eine weiße Seite. Licht ins Dunkel werden wir da nicht bekommen, ob es auch auf der Website schon Public Domain war. Nach so langer Zeit ist eine Freigabe höchst unwahrscheinlich, damit wird hier effektiv Wissen gelöscht. --ɱ

00:23, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Im Archiv der Website lässt sich nachlesen, dass die dortigen Bilder "frei für Privat und Presse" wären. Ist natürlich völlig schwammig, aber es passt zur Webseite und zu den Bildern. Das sind einfache, qualitativ schlechte Bilder, die jedoch einen dokumentarischen Wert haben. Das Letzte, was solch ein Uploader möchte, ist eine Löschung. Die wäre völlig unangemessen und entspricht da nur einer Eitelkeit. Itti (talk) 09:06, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

behalten: Das Bild wurde 2008 mit Nennung eines Urhebers, der eine "private Bildaufnahme" zur freien Verwendung ins Internet geladen hatte, vom Wikipedia-Account S.schwarz in die de.wikipedia übernommen. Der Benutzer S.schwarz ist ansonsten in der Wikipedia nicht in Erscheinung getreten. Für mich folgt daraus, dass S.schwarz eine Wikipedia-Lücke in der Dokumentation des Klaasohm-Brauchs wahrgenommen hat und gemäß Sei mutig gehandelt hat. Gemäß Sei mutig sollen wir alle aber auch tolerant sein!
Warum soll ich dann bei einem Bild, dass über 15 Jahre als freigegebenes Bild in der WP und bei Commons eingestellt und akzeptiert war, im 16. Jahr das Wikipedia-Prinzip Geh von guten Absichten aus – das auf dem Grundsatz von Treu und Glauben – beruht, über den Haufen werfen, obwohl es außer der formalen Reklamation von Didym, die mit rund 15 Jahren Verspätung kommt, nichts am Bild auszusetzen gibt? Um das Bild zu löschen, sind aus meiner Sicht seriöse Fakten vorzulegen, dass S.schwarz und/oder G.Meyer nicht in freier Entscheidung das Bild freigegeben haben oder dass die Namen von anderen zur Lizenzerschleichung frei erfunden wurden. Liebe Grüße --Michael (talk) 13:37, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Behalten. Aus den obendrüber angegebenen Gründen, die auch mir plausibel erscheinen, sehe ich eine potenzielle URV nicht als gegeben – zumal das Bild seit bereits 15 Jahren unbeanstandet verwendet wird. Zusätzlich anzumerken ist, dass das Foto ein derzeit zentral in der Diskussion befindliches Thema illustriert und es zu dem dargestellten Brauch kein freies Ersatzfoto gibt. (Falls möglich, wäre es nicht schlecht, wenn eines der Medien, die dieses Jahr zahlreich von vor Ort berichtet haben, eines oder mehrere aussagekräftige Bilder unter einer freien Lizenz zur Verfügung stellen.) --Zietz (talk) 16:20, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sehe ich auch so. Behalten. Gert Lauken (talk) 18:12, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Behalten. Moin in die Runde. Vielen Dank für die Diskussionsbeiträge zum Klaasohm-Bild. Ich bin ebenfalls der Ansicht, dass das Bild behalten werden sollte. Denn gemäß den Grundprinzipien von Wikimedia Commons und der Wikipedia, wo das Bild ja ursprünglich hochgeladen wurde, gehen wir von guten Absichten der Benutzer aus, sofern es keine konkreten Beweise für eine Urheberrechtsverletzung gibt. Der Uploader hat offensichtlich angegeben, dass das Bild unter einer freien Lizenz steht, und hat es zudem mit einer entsprechenden Beschreibung hochgeladen. Es gibt bisher keinen belastbaren Beleg, dass die Rechteangabe des Uploaders falsch ist. Zudem ist der Upload in der .de/wikipedia ja schon vor Jahren erfolgt (und das Bild laut Beschreibung ja vom 05.-06.12.1999 ist) ist. In diesem langen Zeitraum ist es in vielen Artikeln genutzt worden, die zum Teil hohe Abrufzahlen haben (Zum Beispiel der Borkum-Artikel und der Ostfriesland Artikel. Der Klaasohm-Artikel hatte vor der Berichterstattung eher wenige Aufrufe). Und bisher haben weder der mutmaßliche Urheber noch sonstwer das Bild als problematisch gemeldet hat. Dies legt mMn nahe, dass der tatsächliche Rechteinhaber entweder mit der Veröffentlichung einverstanden ist oder keine Ansprüche erhebt. Und das mehreren tausend Aufrufen nur des Klaasohm-Artikels. Es gibt daher für mich keine Hinweise darauf, dass das Bild unerlaubt veröffentlicht wurde. Der Löschantrag basiert auf der Annahme, dass der Uploader und Fotograf möglicherweise nicht identisch sind, ohne konkrete Beweise dafür vorzulegen. Das ist möglich, muss aber gar nicht so sein. Denn wir haben ja hier freie Namenswahl. Allein der Zweifel an der Identität des Uploaders reicht mMn jedoch nicht aus, um die Löschung zu rechtfertigen, insbesondere wenn keine Urheberrechtsverletzung belegt wurde. in den vergangenen Tagen ist das Eine Löschung sollte nur erfolgen, wenn ausreichend Beweise für eine Verletzung vorliegen. Der Artikel hat derzeit viel Aufmerksamkeit. Das Bild ist das einzige, was wir vom Brauch selbst haben. Für mich ist der Nutzen für die Allgemeinheit deutlich höher zu bewerten als der potenziellen Schaden, zumal keine Beschwerde durch einen Rechteinhaber vorliegt. Daher unbedingt behalten. Gruß Matthias Süßen (talk) 10:06, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Moin, für einen Otto-Normal-Wikipedianer, der mal eben auf die Insel fährt, um solch einen Moment festzuhalten, ist es kaum möglich, in eine so günstige Position zu gelangen, aus der er ein so übersichtliches Bild von oben schießen kann. Dass zudem mit den noch beschränkten, technischen Möglichen des Jahres 1999, in dem das Foto entstanden ist, ein so günstiger Bruchteil der Fall-Sekunde getroffen wird, erhöht den Wert des Bildes nochmals. Man kann beim Ansehen des Bildes den Prozess des Fallens spüren. Nicht zuletzt zeigen die in der letzten Zeit veröffentlichten Dokumentationen, wie schwierig es selbst für professionelle Reporter ist, überhaupt Bilder von Klaasohm zu machen. Ich kann mich an kein Bild in der Presse erinnern, dass nur annähernd so genial diesen Moment wiedergibt, wie dieses. Dass hier trotzdem unter Umschiffung dieser drei Probleme ein solches Bild zustande kommen konnte, ist fast unglaublich aber wahr. Selbst für viele derjenigen Borkumer, die den Brauch des Klaasohms geheim halten möchten, könnte ich mir vorstellen, dass so ein geniales Bild in der Öffentlichkeit akzeptabel wäre. Es zeigt ja eines der weniger umstrittenen Rituale der Veranstaltung. Das alles verleiht dem Bild einen extrem hohen dokumentatorischen Wert und somit Nutzen für die Allgemeinheit. Dies sollte bei der im Vorposting beschriebenen Abwägung gegen andere ideelle Werte berücksichtigt werden. -....- Am Rande bleibt für mich festzuhalten, dass der Klaasohm Artikel schon zwei Jahre nach Gründung der deutschen Wikipedia in der Version vor 20 Jahren zwar weniger professionell als heute das Schlagen junger Frauen thematisiert hat. -- Tirkon (talk) 14:04, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete it. Yes the image show a rare moment and yes it would be hard to replace it. But that doesn’t matter. There is no AGF in copyright. We need a permission from the photograf, because there is no exception like freedom of panorama for this picture. And because it is very unlike to receive that a permission we have to delete it. (for the non-german-speaking users who wonder what is this all about: There was a little bit of a scandal about an old and privy tradition in Borkum and this picture shows a (non-problematic) part of this tradition). --DaB. (talk) 16:42, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What about the archived version of the source website that stated that the images are "frei für Privat und Presse" ("free for private and press")? Nakonana (talk) 19:24, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@DaB., Im Support ist eine massive Beschwerde, ein Fotograf ist einfach auf eine private Wiese gegangen, um ein Haus zu fotografieren. Als er angesprochen wurde, ist er ins Auto gestiegen und schnell weggefahren. Du könntest dir mal das Ticket ansehen und da die Bilder löschen, die nun wirklich rechtswidrig sind. Evt. auch mal den Fotografen ansprechen, damit solches nicht erneut passiert. Hier jedoch wird mit wenig Augenmaß argumentiert. Wer etwas auf seine private Webseite mit "frei für privat und Presse" setzt, hat nichts gegen die Verwendung. Itti (talk) 06:49, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Itti: Der geschilderte Fall ist vom Urheberrecht her KEIN Problem (solange das Haus kein Kunstwerk ist). Das Bild hier wäre auch kein Problem, wenn wir eine Freigabe des Fotografen hätten; und wir sind nunmal weder Presse noch privat. Und ja, ich kann verstehen, dass es schade um das Bild ist; aber es gibt VIELE Bilder die wir gut brauchen könnten, die wir aber nunmal nicht haben können. --DaB. (talk) 22:36, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Der geschilderte Fall ist ein Problem, der hier nicht. Sorry, aber die Panoramafreiheit gilt nicht, wenn jemand privates Gelände betritt und hier ist eine Löschung völlig albern. Itti (talk) 22:38, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Auch wenn’s OT ist: Die Panoramafreiheit wird nur benötigt, wenn es etwas ein Kunstwerk ist. Dinge, die kein Urheberrecht (mehr) haben (wie z.B. ein Haus oder ein Auto) kann man einfach so fotografieren (es gibt kein Recht am Bild der eigenen Sache). Ein Hausrecht beschränkt nur den Fotografen, aber nicht uns. Man könnte jetzt noch das sogenannte Sanssouci-Urteil (was wir im Regelfall aber ignorieren) heranziehen, aber auch dort ging es um Kunstwerke (deren Schutz jedoch bereits abgelaufen war). Von daher werde ich diese Bilder nicht löschen; ich habe aber auch kein Problem wenn sie gelöscht werden. Für alles Weitere schlage ich vor, eine Benutzerdiskussionsseite zu verwenden, weil hier wie gesagt OT --DaB. (talk) 14:44, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Der Fall mit der privaten Wiese bezieht sich aber nicht auf dieses Foto, richtig? Denn auf diesem Foto ist keine Wiese zu sehen und der Fotograf befindet sich offensichtlich irgendwo auf Höhe des ersten (oder sogar zweiten) Stockwerks (oder auf einer Säule wie sie auf dem Foto zu sehen ist). Nakonana (talk) 16:59, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Private" implies a license that includes "Non Commercial"= "NC". This is ensured by "CC BY NC". Press is commercial and relativizes the "NC". Since “BY” was never required, this can also be dropped. So what remains is "Free"= "CC0". (talk) 22:06, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, this is not how any of that works. We need that the copyrigh-owner tells us that the picture is under a free license (like CC-BY). Just because all could use it privately and the press could use it too, you can not assume that it is CC0. --DaB. (talk) 14:50, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:6.-szacila.jpg

1935 photo is not own work. Real source, real author and real license are needed. Taivo (talk) 13:58, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Емблема Конгресу Українських Націоналістів з державним тризубом.svg

COM:UKRAINE does not mention TOO, so the original may have been copyrighted, per COM:PCP. As far as I know, recreating a logo is creation of a derivative work, and therefore is not allowed if the original is copyrighted. Note that the English version of {{PD-UA-Exempt}} says that symbols of organizations are PD; however, the Ukrainian version, which is more up-to-date, does not mention organizational symbols (at least a machine translation of it; I don't speak Ukrainian). Janhrach (talk) 14:12, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Do political parties not count as political authorities? Nakonana (talk) 19:31, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Where are "political authorities" mentioned? Janhrach (talk) 16:34, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"State symbols of Ukraine, government awards; symbols and signs of government authorities, the Armed Forces of Ukraine and other military formations; symbols of territorial communities; symbols and signs of enterprises, institutions and organizations; (includes postage stamps)" Nakonana (talk) 22:32, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"державні символи, державні нагороди; державні знаки, емблеми, символи і знаки органів державної влади, Збройних Сил України та інших військових формувань України, затверджені органами державної влади; символіка територіальних громад України, затверджена відповідними органами місцевого самоврядування;" Nakonana (talk) 22:37, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Where exactly are "political authorities" mentioned? Do you mean the mention of "government authorities"? The corresponding phrase in Ukrainian seems to be "органів державної влади". Accoring to ukwiki (uk:Державна влада), the phrase "Державна влада" seems to mean "state power". Political parties are not organs of state power. Janhrach (talk) 17:14, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Flag of the Congress of Ukrainian Nationalists.svg

See Commons:Deletion requests/File:Емблема Конгресу Українських Націоналістів з державним тризубом.svg. Janhrach (talk) 14:15, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Donegal Fairy Stories (1915).djvu

A concern about the copyright of this work was raised at s:Wikisource:Copyright_discussions#Index:Donegal Fairy Stories (1915).djvu. As it is quite difficult to summarize the Wikisource discussion, I suggest to have a look at the link instead. Note: If it is decided to delete the work in Commons, it should be first moved to English Wikisource, as it is clearly in the Public Domain in the US. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 15:06, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:2021-11-14 龍泉寺初詣切り絵御朱印.jpg

Per COM:DW Yasu (talk) 15:22, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Smaller copy at [5]. Yann (talk) 16:03, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Italian_Region_Sicily_(non_correct_borders).svg

wrong unused old version, the correct one is File:Regione Sicilia 2.svg GioviPen ^{GP msg} 15:41, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean by "unused"? It's COM:INUSE. Do some work on Wikipedias. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:06, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Ikan Kekek (now) is used only in the italian graphic lab that fixed the issue making the new file. GioviPen ^{GP msg} 22:28, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OK, that's a new situation. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:33, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Architectural art "American Song" at Ted Weiss Federal Building, New York, New York LCCN2010720126.tif

Per COM:FOP US, freedom of panorama in the United States does not cover works of art. As the relief is central to this image, and as Highsmith didn't own the copyright to the relief, that makes this a derivative image of a non-free work. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 15:46, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I believe this is a really tricky one that probably should be taken to COM:VP/C. The question is just what is the threshold where the issue of lack of FoP for sculpture in the U.S. sets in for reliefs that are inherent portions of a building. Is it just the usual threshold of originality for the U.S., or is it something higher? Has this ever been tested in a U.S. court? E.g., if this image should be deleted, is File:Seattle - Portal to the Pacific 02.jpg (which I took) a problem, or is the relief there de minimis, or what? File:Seattle - Cristalla 05A.jpg is old enough to be OK, but what if it weren't? We probably have thousands of comparable longstanding files, so I think this merits more of a discussion than just a DR. - Jmabel ! talk 17:58, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In my view, this probably does still qualify under COM:FOP US because arguably it's part of the design of the building and is thus an architectural detail that falls under the freedom of panorama clause (specifically, This includes style elements such as gargoyles and pillars, which are protected only from three-dimensional reproduction (Leicester v. Warner Bros.)). However, I am not going to leave a !vote on this nomination as of yet. Epicgenius (talk) 18:45, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I do note that, per the English Wikipedia article, the relief was installed in 1995 - well after the lower portions of the building were completed. I feel like that would exclude it from being an architectural detail, as the initial installation was just a plain wall. It's a shame, because this is a great picture. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 19:16, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No issue bringing it up at VP/C, in case this is taken as establishing further precedent. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 19:17, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Somewhat related but not exactly the same: the question regarding design elements of fences where a deletion request was concluded as "keep" — Commons:Deletion requests/File:Otter Tail County Historical Museum-05.jpg. Nakonana (talk) 19:57, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Mappa regioni con movimenti indipendentisti.png

unused, unupdated or wrong information with no source or references, out of scope GioviPen ^{GP msg} 15:48, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am the uploader and I agree with the deletion. --Emme17 (talk) 17:20, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just to say I was not the original uploader.-- Carnby (talk) 17:58, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Carnby i know, sorry the message was bcs of the tool GioviPen ^{GP msg} 18:26, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Graphic art "Renewal" at Ted Weiss Federal Building, New York, New York LCCN2010720143.jpg

Per COM:FOP US, freedom of panorama in the United States does not cover works of art. As the painting is central to this image, and as Highsmith didn't own the copyright, and as the artist is still alive, that makes this a derivative image of a non-free work. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 15:49, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Architectural art "American Song" at Ted Weiss Federal Building, New York, New York LCCN2010720127.tif

Per COM:FOP US, freedom of panorama in the United States does not cover works of art. As the relief is central to this image, and as Highsmith didn't own the copyright to the relief, that makes this a derivative image of a non-free work. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 15:51, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This raises the identical issues as Commons:Deletion requests/File:Architectural art "American Song" at Ted Weiss Federal Building, New York, New York LCCN2010720126.tif, but for some reason the two were not combined. There is extensive discussion there, which the closing admin should consult before closing this. - Jmabel ! talk 18:17, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't consider them identical, as the other item could feasibly be deemed de minimis. This one very much is not. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 20:47, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Tarasov 2024 Italien.jpg

This file was initially tagged by Der.Traeumer as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: https://www.windkanal.de/redaktion/redaktions-team Der.Traeumer (talk) 16:16, 6 December 2024 (UTC) Yann (talk) 15:59, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 16:32, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is not the source. Yann (talk) 16:36, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Yann: So what is the source? Did Tarasov get it from Blockflute? Did they both get it from the same source? — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 16:45, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know, but this is taken with a smartphone, so it could be the uploader's own work. Also the uploader was not informed. Yann (talk) 16:51, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Yann: That photo has been on that page since 2024-09-25 09:27:33 (UTC), so it should be deleted here because we don't know under prp. I pinged the uploader. — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 16:56, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, we need more information from the uploader, but I think that a regular DR is better. Yann (talk) 17:35, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Portrait Huang Yong Ping, Monumenta 2016, Grand Palais, Paris - Photo. Fabrice Seixas.jpg

This file was initially tagged by Shizhao as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: https://collection.sina.cn/youdiao/2016-05-10/detail-ifxryhhi8584493.d.html?vt=4 Yann (talk) 16:00, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Marcello Cotugno.jpg

This file was initially tagged by Bradipo Lento as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: Previously published here: https://www.albatrosmagazine.net/coverstory/pronti-al-ritorno Yann (talk) 16:02, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Battle of BK.jpg

This file was initially tagged by Jauhsekali as Copyvio (Copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: dubious license and source, reverse image search showed that the photo has been circulating in the internet for atleast a decade |source=https://lens.google.com/search?ep=gisbubu&hl=id&re=df&p=AbrfA8rs2whSgum3i4cRVeW6tsLjyGJBYELUz63dSMyhc_m4w33aO-9xTfCnaF7_SPq1pfiwBcJJzhj3CW_-POJWGb81uEVLaaganURSpikbpy_5Re-Trxito3eG_0EPAqXzJcm-7VbY94qYRo_nwu9WPkYkx7aHIct5xV85UXzYPUISvqxBeFRcRrsF4lUnowoPdAOHnEw5B76UdA%3D%3D#lns=W251bGwsbnVsbCxudWxsLG51bGwsbnVsbCxudWxsLDEsIkVrY0tKR0ZqWlRFNE1ERmxMVEk0TTJFdE5HSmhNaTA0Tm1FNUxUUm1NRE0xTkdRNVpXTmxZUklmWjE5T1dXUk5OV3RxU1hkV2MwWldkMUYzZG5veE4wY3lPREJETkU5U2F3PT0iLG51bGwsbnVsbCxudWxsLG51bGwsbnVsbCxudWxsLFtudWxsLG51bGwsW251bGwsWzAsMCwxMDAwMDAsMTAwMDAwXV1dLFsiMmU0NDI4ZDQtYmVjNC00YTk0LWFjNjAtOGE5OTExOTRhZjlhIl1d Yann (talk) 16:04, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The photo can be found on alamy with a file size of 28 MB. There it's published with the note: "This image is a public domain image, which means either that copyright has expired in the image or the copyright holder has waived their copyright." See [6]. Nakonana (talk) 20:16, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Daniela2e*** new.jpg

This file was initially tagged by Alabasterstein as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: here the name of the (possible) copyright holder is given https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spezial:Diff/250887562?title=Pierino_Ambrosoli_Foundation but not in the file declaration and there is no permission visible Yann (talk) 16:19, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Iossif Spinel. Ivan the terrible 1942. Ivan and at the coffins of the executed Boyars with St. Philip, Metropolitan of Moscow.jpg

This file was initially tagged by Jaguarnik as no license (No license since)

1942 Russian artwork by an author who died in 1980, Undelete in 2055. Abzeronow (talk) 16:24, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also affected: File:Iossif Shpinel.jpg — a self-portrait by the same artist. Nakonana (talk) 20:30, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:5 Euro Pummerin.jpg

Per COM:CUR Austria and COM:CUR Euro. Absolutiva (talk) 18:20, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:N22978 5+2+1 cnt Lietuva 2015.jpg

Per COM:CUR Euro. Absolutiva (talk) 18:36, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:LV 1 cents.png

Per COM:CUR Euro. Absolutiva (talk) 18:37, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep COM:CUR Euro just says copyright of national sides is regulated by national law, the file has always been clearly labeled as being in public domain in Latvia, besides it depicts coat of arms that also is out of copyright ~~Xil (talk) 20:06, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Superwholock.png

The "Who" wordmark of Doctor Who looks similar than Edge logo per COM:TOO UK Absolutiva (talk) 18:53, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Kinti 2024.jpg

Derivative work of non free content. Also socking, DENY. Yann (talk) 19:16, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

National side of Euro coins (50 cents)

Per COM:CUR Euro, only national sides of Euro coins (including commemorative coins) are copyrighted. --Absolutiva (talk) 19:05, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]