Commons:Deletion requests/2024/05/29

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
28 May 2024
30 May 2024
Deletion requests on 29 May 2024

May 29

[edit]

File:Schweinfurter Mainbogen (2).png

[edit]

Wurde durch eine bessere Datei [1] ersetzt. Foxxy199 (talk) 08:13, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Habe beide Karten geschaffen. Die bessere ersetzt die nahezu ähnliche Vorläufer-Karte, die keine Verwendung mehr findet. Foxxy199

File:Ravishankar Shukla at a meeting of the Congress Party on 14 July 1937.jpg

[edit]

wrong date, wrong source, wrong author Xocolatl (talk) 11:09, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Correction in date done. I don't think there is anything wrong with Source and author name. Looks like a random photograph with unknown author. 2405:201:6006:9A83:2CE9:4A85:B8FF:CD76 19:05, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Cameron Sexton.png

[edit]

This file was initially tagged by Putitonamap98 as Copyvio (Copyvio); tn.gov isn't allowing non-US connections so we need to check the license at the host site  — billinghurst sDrewth 11:29, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The only copyright notice I could find on tn.gov is for the state museum. The legislature portion of the site where this image was found does not have any visible copyright notice or statement. The image itself was extracted from a PDF showing all the members of the 111th general assembly; no copyright statement on the PDF. According to Harvard, Tennessee's attorney general has asserted that copyright on photographs taken by the State of Tennessee's Photographic Services is held by the state, but otherwise only a few other government works are under copyright by statute. Given all that, I'm not sure this isn't under copyright (or CC 2.5 licensable), but there isn't a clear copyright or license listed on tn.gov either. —Tcr25 (talk) 18:47, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Files uploaded by Nestlerin (talk · contribs)

[edit]

copyright violation; artist died in 2018/public domain not before 2088.

Martin Sg. (talk) 20:12, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: as above. --Steinsplitter (talk) 17:50, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Files uploaded by Nestlerin (talk · contribs)

[edit]

copyrigth violation; artist died in 2018.

Martin Sg. (talk) 13:26, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As stated in the deletion requests on the induvidual pieces:
Uploaded by her Daughter, I think she just does not understand the process on how to provide the nessecery documents to wikimedia, that she is giving permission (as lone survivor), someone should talk her through the VRT process. Adtonko (talk) 20:00, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Flag-of-namibia-2023.svg

[edit]

That's not right at all! This is NOT the flag of Namibia. 170.235.203.18 14:04, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Agree Delete files uploaded by this user:

Bennylin (yes?) 15:30, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Peugeot Logo.svg

[edit]

There is no problem with the textlogo but some overwrittings (like this)) are clear copyvios and need to be deleted Fma12 (talk) 14:27, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Samar, Pacific Kayak, Clarks Shoes, Philippines.jpg

[edit]

Unused personal vacation photo, no educational value, out of scope. P 1 9 9  ✉ 15:25, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Keep Given the scope of Wikimedia Commons is very broad, it’s within the COM:SCOPE and certainly has the educational value. The image shows the kayaker’s feet in leather sandals on the kayak deck, a common sight from the kayaker’s perspective when resting between paddles. The view and composition can be instructive, educational. Both the shoes and the kayak are from notable companies. Labeling this image a ‘personal vacation photo’ is a misinterpretation, there’s nothing personal or vacational about it. This is a photo from a kayak marathon in Leyte Gulf off the coast of Samar Island. It also has some historical documentary value, in part because the products depicted are probably no longer in production. --Argenberg (talk) 21:21, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Assange Domscheit-Berg.jpg

[edit]

The source [2] credits the file "© Jacob Appelbaum/A Creative Commons licensed photo." The phrase is not specific enough to determine whether Commons can host it. HeminKurdistan (talk) 15:46, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Deutsche Welle ran the same image (cropped) crediting it as "cc-by-sa/2.0/Jacob Appelbaum". Wired ran it with the credit "Jacob Appelbaum/Flickr". Neither of these instance (nor the Vanity Fair source) link to the Flickr account to confirm. Wait, here is the original posted by Appelbaum (ioerror) to Flickr {{Cc-by-sa-2.0}} is confirmed. —Tcr25 (talk) 17:17, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Tcr25 Thanks for taking the time to find the original. I withdraw the nomination. HeminKurdistan (talk) 17:31, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome; I've overwritten with the original and updated the file information and license. It still needs admin/reviewer check to officially confirm the license. —Tcr25 (talk) 17:47, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Files in Category:Logos of Carrefour Group

[edit]

Not too simple for copyright. See Commons:Deletion requests/Carrefour logo.

Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 16:14, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Logo Carrefour sans texte.png is the right group logo. --Swaf75 (talk) 21:58, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
 Speedy keep. Carrefour logo is above the Threshold of originality in the US. Similar images are below the threshold of originality required for copyright protection. Especially the Subway and Nikken logos are good examples. The Carrefour logo is just a square of red and blue colors with a transparent "C" letter. It's not complicated enough to be above the US standards.
Comparison
This logo Logos below the Threshold of Originality in the United States
  • Best Western hotels: Consists of letters plus a simple border. None of these is eligible for copyright protection in United States. (authority)
    Best Western hotels: Consists of letters plus a simple border. None of these is eligible for copyright protection in United States. (authority)
  • Nikken USA Inc. (authority)
    Nikken USA Inc. (authority)
  • Bruce Lee core symbol (authority)
    Bruce Lee core symbol (authority)
  • Subway logo (authority)
    Subway logo (authority)
Rezonansowy (talk) 16:29, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I updated my comment to include a comparison. --Rezonansowy (talk) 16:41, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see a section under TOO for the country of Spain. So your keep rationale does not apply. Also, "speedy" means you are attempting to censor the discussion by having it closed prematurely; we only do that for bad faith nominations. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 02:04, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Magog the Ogre: Let me explain this case more closely:
  1. The design of all works listed above bases on File:Logo Carrefour sans texte.png, which is the original logo and trademark of Carrefour. Carrefour S.A. is a company which bases in France. Country of origin of the Carrefour logo is France then.
  2. According to Commons:Copyright rules policy: Files uploaded to Commons should be free both in the country of origin (as defined by the Berne Convention) and in the United States of America. Other juridical territories are not involved in the creation of the work.
  3. According to Commons:Threshold of originality policy, the examples of the Threshold of originality in the United States given above are: OK to upload to Commons, because they are below the threshold of originality required for copyright protection and are judged ineligible for copyright protection by a court or similar authority.
  4. According to Commons:Threshold of originality policy, the Threshold of originality in the France: asserts that a work is copyrightable when it bears the "imprint of the personality of the author" and In practice, it depends on the work in question, but this has left the bar quite low for many works where an artistic intent can be shown.
  5. The logo of Carrefour Group presents the design of the same nature which was already judged by the United States Copyright Office as ineligible to be copyrighted. In addition, the logo of Carrefour Group does not show the personality of the author or the artistic intent as required by the French law. Therefore, the copyright for the logo of Carrefour Group does not exist.
  6. Your deletion rationale was a statement Not too simple for copyright. and a link reference to another Deletion Request – Commons:Deletion requests/Carrefour logo.
  7. The contents of the above reference also consist only of votes and personal opinions without expressing any arguments of legal nature. The above Deletion Request authored by Taivo with a rationale: I think, that the logo surpasses threshold of originality. and that statement on the previous similar case on Commons that in my opinion the result was incorrect. The request was closed by Natuur12 with a rationale I agree with Taivo, non basic shapes.
  8. As a response to the above, I posted my vote of speedy keep for this work as I did not see a right rationale to contest the copyright status of this logo just by relying on personal votes. Unlike yours unfortunately, my vote has a rationale with a legal basis.
  9. Regarding the legal jurisdiction of the Carrefour Group headquarters it is difficult for me to understand why you provided Spain as a country which is binding in Threshold of originality to the logo of Carrefour Group. Spain was not the source country of this work and/or the country originally involved in its initial creation or first publication.
  10. If believe that you should include Spain in the copyright scope of the work and did not find information you were interested then you should rather apply the rule of assuming the copyright good status of the file. You just provide as your rationale a statement that I don't see a section under TOO for the country of Spain.
  11. You responded that So your keep rationale does not apply. Regarding the above this is not right.
  12. Your deletion rationale does not conform to a Community standards of Wikimedia Commons which are described under Commons:Deletion policy#Reasons for deletion.
  13. You answered me that "speedy" means you are attempting to censor the discussion by having it closed prematurely; we only do that for bad faith nominations. First, as I stated above I voted speedy keep because your deletion request seems to be likely invalid as it does not contain any specific rationale. By simply stating Not too simple for copyright you do not start the discussion. Also, who is we? General statements that we do that or we do not that which lack any specific disclosure are very misleading, especially when it is written by an admin. You should not do that. Please be more specific and direct. This is also described in Commons:Deletion requests.Added a reference.--Rezonansowy (talk) 17:40, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  14. In addition, by saying to me that by expressing my vote you are attempting to censor the discussion is likely against my freedom of speech and expression and also against the Community standards and policies like Commons:Assume good faith which says about the assuming good faith standard. Even if you did not intend to you actually did me feel like this. I and everyone else have a right to express any vote or opinion which does not hurt anyone or is not against the law.
  15. @Magog the Ogre, Natuur12, and Taivo: I really appreciate your service as admins on Commons but guys, what are you doing? You seem to completely ignore any standards of merit discussion which always shall include legal and material arguments. You replaced these standards with a showcase of personal opinions and agreements. Such practice lead to performing a wrong decisions and they harm everyone at Wikimedia Commons. I am very tired of dealing with such crap. When even admins do it, it is enough. Pleas stop it and start respecting the Community standards and official policies by relying on merit arguments (like providing the legal basis).
  16. Again, I appreciate your work and service (all of you guys!) and know that you have your own lives but please pay attention to the above...

Yours in Community,

--Rezonansowy (talk) 15:09, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

When creating previous request, I did not realize, that this is big white C on blue and red background. Writing big white C into square in such way, that I do not understand, that this is C in square, clearly shows personality of the author and artistic intent. I agree now, that the logo is too simple for copyright in USA, but probably not in source country France. Taivo (talk) 16:21, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Taivo: Thank you for your response and legal analysis. Towards France, the thing is the the work is assigned to a company and companies cannot have a personality. They can express their services through logo but not personality. This work was created for marketing purposes not artistic so there is no direct artistic intent, even you or some other individual finds it interesting in an aesthetic sense. --Rezonansowy (talk) 17:46, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I do not agree with your conclusion, that logos of companies of France cannot be copyrighted. Taivo (talk) 17:52, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Taivo: Again, please reread the Commons:Deletion requests#Overview on how to express an opinion on Wikimedia Commons. I can understand the need to research the case more closely, but you cannot just say that you agree or not with something. --Rezonansowy (talk) 00:25, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Delete all. According to com:TOO the threshold for France seems to be "imprint of the personality of the author" and one cannot deny that such a threshold is met with those logo's. Also it’s required that a work is free in the source country and the US. Therefor the US examples are irrelevant. I would also note that fonts can be copyrighted in Europe. Therefor the “it’s just a C-argument” has little merit. I would find it funny to read that company’s cannot hold a copyright over their logo’s but it’s just plain sad honestly. I would recommend that Rezonansowy takes an introduction course about copyright before they accuse others off “completely ignore any standards of merit discussion”. Natuur12 (talk) 13:46, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

 Deleted, the logo has artistic intent and therefore is copyrighted in source country France. Taivo (talk) 18:48, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

Files in Category:Logos of Carrefour Group

[edit]

The logo's of Carrefour are copyrighted. The design is above threshold of originality per COM:TOO France. Therefore these files cannot be hosted on Commons with one of the free licences.

Ellywa (talk) 09:54, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: Copy vio - We can always undelete if COM:VRT is provided and approved. Thanks everyone for participating and if you disagree with this decision please take it to Commons:Undeletion requests - unless there is a tech issue. Thanks for assuming good faith and happy new year!. --Missvain (talk) 18:39, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Files in Category:Logos of Carrefour Group

[edit]

Per Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Logos of Carrefour Group. The country of origin of the logo is France where the threshold of originality is too low.

Günther Frager (talk) 17:12, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. ✗plicit 00:04, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Files in Category:Logos of Carrefour Group

[edit]

The country of origin of the logo is France where the threshold of originality is too low. See previous DR on these category.

Günther Frager (talk) 22:52, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 03:16, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files in Category:Logos of Carrefour Group

[edit]

Per above DRs, this logo of the letter C in a rhombus with slightly rounded corners is above COM:TOO France, somehow

Nutshinou Talk! 17:05, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete per nomination (and previous ones). Threshold of originality in France is too low. Günther Frager (talk) 17:13, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This logo is also original here in Spain, although its origin is French, I understand. In all the integrated food chains of petrol stations, there are many of these logos. This is the problem. Autopistero20502020 (talk) 17:17, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Speedy keep the file File:Logo Carrefour Express (naranja).svg should not be deleted because it is placed in several articles on motorways and highways as part of a CEPSA service area or petrol station integrated with Carrefour Express. The problem is not the rights of the author, but, the problem is that the icon has to appear for the transparency to the drivers. There are several logos of other food chains that are integrated in the petrol station and for this reason, please do not delete the file.
I hope you understand me well in English.
Thank you very much and best regards. Autopistero20502020 (talk) 17:14, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Carrefour 1988.svg was previously deleted (note the blue link among the long list of red links above). I don’t know whether the file’s contents are the same as before, but the file’s log suggests that the original uploader may have returned under a different name. Brianjd (talk) 02:36, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Brianjd, this file File:Logo Carrefour Express (naranja).svg does not come from this file File:Carrefour 1988.svg, it comes from another site, just so you know. I think the original may come from the Carrefour logo (red and blue color, the original, not the old). Autopistero20502020 (talk) 08:51, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Vahid Nouri (IRI) and Hélios Latchoumanaya (FRA) at the 2020 Summer Paralympics judo semifinal.jpg

[edit]

This photograph lacks any of usual indications of being a work by Tasnim (documented here), and it was taken outside Iran. Considering that this file had been available on the internet as early as 29 August 2021 (before publication by Tasnim, on 28 Spetember 2021) makes it very difficult to believe that Tasnim owns the rights. HeminKurdistan (talk) 17:09, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Bad Doberan - BBS Forst - Reife- und Facharbeiterzeugnis.jpg

[edit]

The file in this form is not suitable for presenting the history of BBS Forst. Horst Pomplun (talk) 17:20, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Списки погребенных стр.1 (Б - Г).jpg

[edit]

"лишний" Sshut (talk) 17:50, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Изображение 001.png

[edit]

плохое качество Sshut (talk) 09:59, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming that google translate was right in translating the reason with “poor quality” -- it took 10 seconds in GIMP to improve. Should be the same for the following two requests. Given that uploader also started the request it could be considered a courtesy request. Alas after 1 1/2 years changing his mind is not on. The image was published under an IRREVOCABLE CC license, thus should be kept. (Lousy images abound on commons) --Zenwort (talk) 08:19, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Yann (talk) 18:17, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

File:Изображение 001.png

[edit]

"лишнее" Sshut (talk) 17:55, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Изображение 002.png

[edit]

"лишнее" Sshut (talk) 17:56, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Захоронение Славинского В.Г.jpg

[edit]

"лишнее" Sshut (talk) 17:59, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Списки погребенных стр.3 (К).jpg

[edit]

"лишнее" Sshut (talk) 18:03, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Списки погребенных стр.4 (Н - Р).jpg

[edit]

"лишнее" Sshut (talk) 18:06, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Списки погребенных стр.4 (К).jpg

[edit]

"лишнее" Sshut (talk) 18:10, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Списки погребенных стр.5 (К - Н).jpg

[edit]

"лишнее" Sshut (talk) 18:11, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Списки погребенных стр.1 (Б).jpg

[edit]

"лишнее" Sshut (talk) 18:12, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Madusa Miceli, 1988 01.jpg

[edit]

Terms of use of the source gives no permission to this upload. 186.175.93.156 18:24, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep: Victory Sports Wrestling magazine was part of the same family of professional wrestling magazines as Pro Wrestling Illustrated (known as "Apter Mags"). Pro Wrestling Illustrated (PWI) is still in publication as of today. PWI nor any of the other wrestling magazines published by "London Publishing Co." began printing clear-cut copyright notices until the year 2000, when PWI began attributing its copyright to "London Publishing Co. ©". The source edition of Victory Sports Wrestling, just as every other issue of Victory Sports Wrestling from this time period, does not correctly assert copyright anywhere within its pages, failing 2 of 3 requirements listed on w:Copyright notice#Form of notice for visually perceptible copies and therefore is correctly eligible for Template:PD-US-1978-89.

For further references, please follow this link to other wrestling magazines published by London Publishing Co." and see for yourself that none of them feature correct copyright statements. CeltBrowne (talk) 20:34, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files in Category:Garmsar Grand Ab Anbar

[edit]

There is no reference that proves it is a {{PD-Iran}}

{{User|POS78}} talk 18:30, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Prudence MAIDOU.png

[edit]

Avec un copyright dans le commentaire est t'on bien dans une image librement réutilisable ? Bertrand Labévue (talk) 18:39, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Sigame Maiga.jpg

[edit]

C'est la photo du ...? 186.175.93.156 19:07, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ce fichier représente la photo du Dr Sigame Boubacar Maiga. Foussko (talk) 19:38, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Boy nude penis from below outdoors.jpg

[edit]

and

out of scope; the title indicates a boy and as under 18 that falls well outside of scope and probably outside our legal ability to hold. Precautionary principle says to delete. Com:Nudity can be referenced though does not address the issue of age and legality.  — billinghurst sDrewth 22:04, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Weak keep Child abuse material should be dealt with by the legal team, not here. However, whatever you might think about the term ‘boy’, the uploader specifically stated that they were aged 21 (born 2002).
It is possible that the files are out of scope for other reasons, but I will leave such discussion to other users for now. Brianjd (talk) 02:44, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I initially assumed the uploader was also the subject, but now I am not so sure. In any case, anyone who has genuine doubts about the subject’s age should refer this to the legal team. Brianjd (talk) 02:46, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
From the uploader’s user page, we can reasonably infer that the uploader is also the subject, and therefore the subject is of age. There is also an unusual amount of information provided, especially for nude images. These are good reasons to keep these files.
 Weak delete However, we must still check whether the uploader is really both the subject and the copyright holder. That seems unlikely. Brianjd (talk) 03:32, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have been making that argument a lot, because it seems to be common wisdom. Now, I am not so sure. But these images (at least the first two) seem unlikely to be taken using a timer, so maybe that argument is still valid. Brianjd (talk) 00:59, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]


 Comment I would at least speak in favor of renaming the files from "boy" to "young man" to avoid misunderstandings. Nakonana (talk) 08:26, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files in Category:Fictional flags of Wallachia

[edit]

Unused flags in a subcategory of flags fictional flags to be depreciated

The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 23:37, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The third one is not fictional but very blurry. --2A01:CB1C:821F:A400:D013:56:E71D:6793 12:42, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/2024/05/29&oldid=889780397"