Commons:Deletion requests/2024/04/22

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

April 22

[edit]

Автором указана официальный фотограф Казанского университета Басырова. При этом, в метаданных автором и владельцем авторских прав указан некий «TOHTASINOV». По моему предположению, это фотограф Тохтасинов, который с сотрудничал/сотрудничает с Казанским университетом. Подложная лицензия и подложные данные в тикете VRT. Engelberthumperdink (talk) 07:43, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The author is indicated as the official photographer of Kazan University Basirova. At the same time, in the metadata, the author and owner of the copyright is indicated as a certain "TOHTASINOV". In my opinion, this is the photographer Tohtasinov, who collaborated/collaborates with Kazan University. Fake license and fake data in the VRT ticket.

Files uploaded by JurisMillers (talk · contribs)

[edit]

Old photo(s). Proper author/date/country of creation information should be supplied to determine copyrights status and license tags corrected.

  1. File:Person Bruno Moeller - Image 79 Bruno Moeller of Person Bruno Moeller.jpg
  2. File:Erich Seuberlich.jpg
  3. File:Person Friedwald Louie Moeller - Image 2 Friedwald Moeller of Person Friedwald Louie Moeller.jpg

Estopedist1 (talk) 08:07, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment Photo 2 looks to be w:lv:Eriks Zeiberlihs and I am not comfortable saying that they are not really old photos. The upload information is obviously incorrect.  — billinghurst sDrewth 12:29, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Low quality image. Better version available at File:Capriccio, copy after Francesco Guardi.jpg Vincent Steenberg (talk) 08:13, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Multichill: It is of very low quality and very small size, hard to imagine a meaningful use if even slightly better versions are available, so I don't quite get the "completeness" argument - what do you think is the potential use of this version, exactly? Gestumblindi (talk) 20:45, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files uploaded by Jaimito130805 (talk · contribs)

[edit]

Not own works, please provide a proper source, date, evidence of a free license.

Yann (talk) 12:06, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Yann, File:China CSST Xuntian.jpg should be credited to the China National Space Administration (CNSA). This information can be found in some earlier media posts from aviationweek.com and space.com. The same figure also appeared in a twitter post in year 2018. TigerRandomHouse (talk) 21:36, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@TigerRandomHouse: Yes, of course, but is it under a free license? Yann (talk) 21:43, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think this Template:PD-PRC-exempt applies to the file by CNSA. TigerRandomHouse (talk) 21:58, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All images from https://www.zoores.ac.cn (Zoological Research) are under the cc-by-nc-4.0 license. Please refer to the PDF of the source paper for each image.

The Permissions page claims: "All papers published in Zoological Research is open-access and distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License", which seems to be an incorrect license.

shizhao (talk) 12:52, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

该期刊与ZooKeys同样都是开放共享期刊,其内容符合维基百科使用协议。 Zhangmoon618 (talk) 00:45, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nope. See COM:L#Acceptable licenses. Quick1984 (talk) 18:57, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files uploaded by Zhangmoon618 (talk · contribs)

[edit]

The source of the map base map data and images is unknown and may be copyvio.

shizhao (talk) 13:10, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

这些地图全部为本人使用Arcmap软件独立绘制,不存在任何侵权。地图数据来源在描述中已说明,地形数据源自https://search.asf.alaska.edu/中的12.5m分辨率的DEM数据,行政界线、地名源自天地图,水系依据《中国河湖大典》及天地图影像描绘。流域范围示意图是利用以上这些公开数据,使用Arcmap中的水文分析得到的,都是本人原创,无侵权。 Zhangmoon618 (talk) 12:03, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files uploaded by Zhangmoon618 (talk · contribs)

[edit]

these images not PD-PRC-exempt

shizhao (talk) 13:12, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

这部分是我对政策理解有误,如果不符合政策,那就直接删除吧! Zhangmoon618 (talk) 11:56, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

double of https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Casa_Museu_Eva_Klabin_10.jpg Sintegrity (talk) 13:49, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Comment: I went on a tour with other people from Wikipedia a few weeks ago. I took many photos. I felt sick inside that house, I left before finishing my visit to this museum. If you want to delete the photos, you can delete everything. Ana Mercedes Gauna (talk) 17:58, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]


File:Flag of Yufu Oita.svg is a duplicate of File:Flag of Yufu, Oita.svg OperationSakura6144 (talk) 14:13, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Per de:St. Mauritius (Königshofen), the ceiling frescoes as well as the stations of the cross in this German church are 1938 works of painter de:August Braun (Kirchenmaler) (1876–1956) and his nephew Josef Braun (1903–1965). So they are still protected by copyright in Germany. There is no freedom of panorama inside buildings in Germany, so the files should be deleted. They can be restored in 2036 (the US copyrights should have expired by then as well).

Rosenzweig τ 16:16, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep for:
 Keep also for:
--> all CROPPED ... without frescos ... or without Stations of the Cross.
Greets -- Triple C 85 | User talk | 19:36, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Die Aufnahmen befinden sich im Inneren einer Kirche als Wandgemälde. In der Kirche finden Gottesdienste und andere religiöse Feiern und Veranstaltungen statt - z.B. Hochzeiten, Taufen, Konfirmationen, ect. Die Teilnehmer dürfen zu diesen Veranstaltungen Fotos erstellen - z.B. Trauung oder Taufe. Die Familie und andere Gäste sind Teil der Veranstaltung wie auch die Beteiligten der Kirche - Pfarrer, Messdiener, usw. Ich stelle mir vor - da kommt zwei Wochen später ein Schreiben vom Anwalt - bitte überweist an Familie XYZ eine Gebühr in Höhe von EUR - Begründung. Auf den Fotos in der Webseite und in dem Schaukasten der Kirche wurde im Hintergrund auch die Kunstwerke (Fresken) des Kirchenmalers mit abgelichtet. Jemand könnte diese Hochzeitsfotos nutzen, um eine kommerzielle Serie von Bildern mit den Gemälden erstellen. Das ist ungefähr die Konsequenz - würde man in jedem Innenraum in einer Kirche, Schule, Behörde, ... erst den Check auf Kunst im öffentlichen Raum erledigen müssen. Ich bin überzeugt - die Kirchenmaler würden das auch so sehen. Unsere Welt scheint nur noch am Mammon und der Verteidigung von Urheberrechten interessiert zu sein. Bei Wikipedia geht es um die Verbreitung von Wissen und die Würdigung von Kunst. Wenn die Kunst nicht gezeigt werden darf dann ist das kontraproduktiv. Ich bin für behalten EACC80 (talk) 12:44, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Eine der Grundregeln von Wikimedia Commons steht dem entgegen: „Auf Wikimedia Commons sind nur freie Inhalte erlaubt, also Bilder und andere Mediendateien, die keinen Urheberrechtsbeschränkungen unterworfen sind, die einer Nutzung von jedem, jederzeit und für jeden Zweck entgegenstehen.“ (Commons:Licensing/de) --Rosenzweig τ 14:35, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Die DSD (Deutsche Stiftung Denkmalschutz) ist Partner von Wikipedia und Mitorganisator des Projektes Wiki loves Monuments. Dort gibt es massenhaft Bilder zu Baudenkmalen und z.B. auch in den Innenräumen gezeigten Inventar. Ich habe gestern mit meinen Kollegen telefoniert. Sie finden das ist ein Fall für die Öffentlichkeitsarbeit. Ich werde ein Schreiben an die Stiftung absenden in dem ich diesen Fall zum Anlass nehme, um diesen "Popanz" Urheberrechte in Bezug auf auf KD zu klären. Ich bin sicher das wird Anfang Mai eine verbindliche Stellungnahme geben und dann wird sich das Thema erledigt haben.EACC80 (talk) 06:27, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

no permission no author and used for advertising on nl-wiki Hoyanova (talk) 16:33, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This file was initially tagged by 185.172.241.184 as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: non-free image from Flickr

Flickr license history says this was Public Domain Mark when uploaded in December 2020. Abzeronow (talk) 17:02, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep The work has been released into the public domain by the author, which is irrevocable. As a result, the author can no longer claim copyright. 0x0a (talk) 18:04, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lo stemma delle Frecce Tricolori è stato aggiornato ed è visibile sulla loro pagina web ufficiale: Noble Aviator (talk) 17:26, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.aeronautica.difesa.it/home/noi-siamo-l-am/personale-e-mezzi/pattuglia-acrobatica-nazionale/ Noble Aviator (talk) 17:26, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Frecce Tricolori emblem has been updated and is visible on their official web page

This file was initially tagged by Wutkh as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: Not an uploader's work, found on various sites, including here (on "1959" menu). Yann (talk) 17:35, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I have nominated to delete this photo as it is still protected by copyright law. If the uploader cannot specify the date taken and photo's owner, it could be presumed it is going to Princess Srinagarindra. She died in 1995 (Reference: w:Srinagarindra), so this picture is copyrighted till 2045 (according to Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Thailand. Although the website placed in "1959" menu, it is not specified that it was taken in 1959. Wutkh (talk) 06:29, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This file was initially tagged by Grandmaster Huon as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: probably not their own work. Yann (talk) 17:36, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, this image is not my own work, except for the removal of personal information by a pseudonym. I submitted it to update the previous version of this image, which is several years old File:Carte rtm sanscontact.JPG. I see no objection to you deleting this image. Romainluc (talk) 17:54, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Delete, per Romainluc. Grandmaster Huon (talk) 19:41, 22 April 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.

This one is borderline. The letters have some pretty distinct stylization within them. See the larger version here: [1]. Is that enough to push it over TOO? This is an American company by the way. Majora (talk) 23:20, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Kept: American company, so USA law applies. There is no copyright for any type face, however complex, under US law. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:59, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This file was initially tagged by Grandmaster Huon as Logo Yann (talk) 17:39, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The gradients that look like a rock in the text turn it above the TOO line. Grandmaster Huon (talk) 19:35, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This file was initially tagged by Diddykong1130 as Copyvio (Copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: The source URL provided by the uploader states the credit is "Danny Wild-USA TODAY Sports". You can only mark this as a US Army photo if a member of the US Army takes the photo.|source=https://goarmywestpoint.com/galleries/football/football-at-coastal-carolina/sep-3-2022-conway-south-caroli/1075/173711 Yann (talk) 17:50, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Although it does say Danny Wild-USA Today Sports it also says Danny Wild/US ARMY. So it is a US Army photo. CavsFan45 (talk) 17:54, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is the photographer's professional website (https://dannywild.com/about/). He covers Army Football but he is not a US Army officer or employee. Diddykong1130 (talk) 15:01, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think this official soccer card may be copyrighted as it is very new. Leoboudv (talk) 20:00, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The leaf shapes and letter adornings make this logo above TOO. Grandmaster Huon (talk) 20:00, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Grandmaster Huon: I have removed the leaf shapes and with that now the logo would be simple and would meet the requirements, what do you think about it? Sebano1999 (talk) 01:16, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I already did that before you. Other than that, it is no more complex than this logo, so I think you're good. 😉👍 Grandmaster Huon (talk) 01:20, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files uploaded by Toshibafansandmore (talk · contribs)

[edit]

May be above COM:TOO UK.

Grandmaster Huon (talk) 20:13, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep specifically for the 1963 BBC1 logo, which should be speedly keep instead. This logo is far below threshold of originality even in the UK themselves as it using the standard font. This PNG version could remain in use until the SVG version of it exist. Not sure about the rest. Yayan550 (talk) 12:29, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Page from a work that I doubt was created by the uploader. Abzeronow (talk) 20:13, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If I uploaded this file, it is because I was allowed to upload it. I think it is very ridiculous to think of creating a free encyclopedia based on what "one person believes."
With what "one person believes" you can create, perhaps, a religion. Science and serious publishing projects are based on facts, not on what "one person believes". Anyway you can delete it, it's not my problem. Michele-ing (talk) 09:00, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Michele-ing Are you the author of the document? Consigned (talk) 22:24, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This file was uploaded by me as a temporary solution to the newly better uploaded logo: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Stema_e_Fanell%C3%ABs_s%C3%AB_Komb%C3%ABtares.svg Xhulianoo (talk) 21:14, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This flag isn't real. Also you can find same file on this link Kurmanbek💬 22:53, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently false claim for public domain status. The picture would appear not to be by a federal employee; possibly by a state employee, but state employee materials do not automatically go in the public domain. NatGertler (talk) 23:57, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This logo seem to too simple to have copyright. Luke atlas (talk) 01:52, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Weak delete Though COM:TOO Canada suggests that TOO is quite high like COM:TOO USA, it says "The exercise of skill and judgment required to produce the work must not be so trivial that it could be characterized as a purely mechanical exercise." I believe this design did take use graphic design skill and judgement to create, more than a purely mechanical exercise, particularly the proportions of the shapes and the "smile". That it is borderline and I invite other opinions. Consigned (talk) 22:29, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]