Commons:Deletion requests/2024/10/23

22 October 2024

24 October 2024

Deletion requests on 23 October 2024

October 23

File:HarmonyOS NEXT.webp

A logo from Huawei. The author is apparently not the one indicated in the description and the license is also fake IMHO. The logo may also exceed the threshold of originality in China. Teetrition (talk) 03:00, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:OU Bob Wren Statue.JPG

There's no freedom of panorama for 3D works of art (e.g. statues) even when they're publicly displayed in cases where they've been installed on or after 1 January 1978 per COM:FOP US. Given that en:Bob Wren Stadium opened in April 1998, no en:copyright formalities were even required for such works because by then the US had already begun applying the en:Berne Convention. So, unless it can be shown that this statue has been released by its copyright holder (which is typically its creator) either into the public domain or under a free license acceptable to Commons, this is a derivative work that Commons won't be able to keep. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:48, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Belinus panels.jpg

This is Isaksen Solar's photo. We did not authorize the uploading of this photo. We reserve all rights to this image. Rcross12 (talk) 12:18, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Fictional unsourced flag.svg

Another fictional flag that needs to be removed. The author himself placed it as fictional, while it was added to Wikipedia articles. Mizgel (talk) 12:46, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, regretfully, as this image is still in use. See Commons:Deletion requests/File:Flag of Siberian Khanate.svg for previous discussions. Omphalographer (talk) 21:02, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is not a 'fictional flag' in a simple sense. It is INUSE and it is claimed to be either a representation of a historical flag, or an icon to represent some identifiable historical grouping, the Khanate of Sibir. If you claim that it's inaccurate, then say why or fix it, but that's a different problem to claiming 'fictional'. If you claim the use at WP is inappropriate, then take that up with WP. But INUSE is here as a policy because it's just not Commons' business to be making content-related decisions for other projects, such as en:WP. If they want to use it, that's good enough for us here. @Sebirkhan: Andy Dingley (talk) 19:02, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I don't really care whether this file is deleted or not. However, in defense of this file, I can say that this flag is not "fictional". In the middle of the flag is the Tamga of the Siberian Tatars (in modern language, this could mean the Coat of Arms of all Siberian Tatars), and the background color is sky blue - the traditional color of the Turkic peoples since the times of the Turkic Khaganate and the Köktürks (Blue Turks) and in the modern era is also used as a color of the Turkic peoples: for example, on the flags of the Organization of Turkic States (OTS), Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Karakalpakstan, Bashkortostan, East Turkestan, Yakutia, Crimean Tatars, Karaites, Krymchaks, and so on. In addition, this flag is used in thematic articles, computer games, and so on.

The only problem for me is that my friends - Siberian Tatars, described this variation of tamga as a "chemical symbol" (probably because of the blunt ends), and the shades of blue and yellow are too "poisonous". I intend to upgrade and fix this if the decision is made to keep the file. Sebirkhan (talk) 19:49, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Flag of Nogai Horde.svg

Another fictional flag that needs to be removed. Mizgel (talk) 13:00, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but rename it to File:Flag of the Nogais of Moscow.svg and remove it from pages where it is incorrectly used to represent Nogai Horde, since this flag does exist and is used, see [1]. 5.142.178.40 12:57, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Toronto Blue Jays baseball cards

Copyvios. All of these files use the Template:PD-US-1978-89. However, there is nothing to suggest that they were published in the United States. Toronto is famously in Canada. You can find the Trading Card Database entries for the five cards here, here, here, here and here. The reverse of each card indicates it was sponsored by the Ontario Association of Fire Chiefs and The Toronto Star. These were produced in Canada for a Canadian audience, PD-US-1978-89 does not apply and they are not in the public domain. --Denniscabrams (talk) 13:26, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On second thought, File:John Cerutti.jpg may qualify for Template:Non-free historic image because its subject is deceased and there are no other properly licensed images of him known. Denniscabrams (talk) 13:42, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Street art by Anne Bundgaard honouring Inge Lehmann.jpg

made by Anne Bundgaard (Wall of Fame på Nordre Fasanvej (frederiksbergfonden.dk, in Danish), thus still alive artist and there's no FOP in Denmark for works of art. 87.49.146.237 15:40, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Dziennik telewizyjny.jpg

This is a logo, not a photograph. {{PD-Poland}} only applies to photographs. Botev (talk) 15:59, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Dziennik-telewizyjny-Intro.ogv

{{PD-Poland}} only applies to photographs. This is not a photograph but an audio-visual work. Botev (talk) 16:13, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Meike, the wife of the street photographer, looks at a rubber doll.jpg

Per COM:TOYS A1Cafel (talk) 16:14, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"The prerequisite for copyright protection is that the item in question qualifies as a work within the meaning of Section 2 Paragraph 2 of the Copyright Act and meets the criteria for the definition of a work established by the case law of the ECJ."

"According to this, protectability as a work requires two characteristics:

On the one hand, it must be an original that is the author's own intellectual creation. This is the case if the object reflects the personality of its author by expressing his or her free creative decisions (ECJ, judgment of June 11, 2020 - C-833/18 Rn. 22f. - Brompton m.w.N.).

On the other hand, such a creation must be expressed. According to the jurisprudence of the ECJ, this requires an object that can be identified with sufficient accuracy and objectivity (ECJ, judgment of June 11, 2020 - C-833/18 Rn. 22, 25 - Brompton m.w.N.)."

( Text Source) - Quelle: Hier

Deletes the image; This is a difficult legal matter! --Lupus in Saxonia (talk) 17:49, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

From my point of view, many images of the categories also fall under the requested reason for deletion, if applicable.!??

Please see:" - Commons Category: Realdolls & Category:Sex dolls & Nude sex dolls & Category:Orient Industry

14-10-17 Penthouse Sexpuppen
Lovedoll001
BDSM Workshop in Berlin - Stille Beobachterinnen (Lebensgroße Gummipuppen) verfolgen die Erziehungsspiele eines Meisters (BDSM) und erfreuen das anwesende Publikum.
Bondage Doll
Venus Berlin 2019 795
Venus Berlin 2019 919

& Category:Sexbots|Video /wiki/Category:Sexbots

Deletes this ( and other) image(s) !!??; This is a difficult legal matter! --Lupus in Saxonia (talk) 18:12, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Supplement: - Spiritual content

"The work must have an intellectual content. It must go beyond the "mere substratum perceptible to the senses. The human spirit must be expressed in the work (according to Schricker/Löwenheim § 2, para. 18). This is lacking, for example, in the results of purely mechanical activities or the result of gimmicks."

Form

"Finally, the criterion of form presupposes that the work in its concrete form is accessible to sensory perception (Bettinger, loc. cit., p. 54). Unformed or unexpressed thoughts, on the other hand, are not protectable. Although it is not necessary to fix the work, it is certainly desirable for evidentiary purposes."

Form and content

"Difficult questions of a legal nature are always raised by the distinction between form and content. The question has been discussed in Germany for more than 100 years (cf. Bettinger, loc. cit., p. 56 f.). Ultimately, it is a question of whether only the expression of an idea in its concrete form is protected, or whether the content of this form can also be protected, at least to a certain extent."

( Text Source) - Quelle: Hier - --Lupus in Saxonia (talk) 18:45, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

:Summary from my point of view - From my point of view, these are (uniform, possibly regenerated by artificial intelligence) - doll faces without creative height in the sense of copyright. --Lupus in Saxonia (talk) 19:33, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Kourtney Kardashian 2019.jpg

This file was initially tagged by Diddykong1130 as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: While the video is listed with a Creative Commons Attribution license it's not VOGUE Taiwan's video. The origin of the video is a copy of an interview with Architectural Digest (which the original video does not have the CC license) so VOGUE Taiwan most likely doesn't have the right to put a different license on it. Screen shot for this image is at roughly 01:35 of the Architectural Digest video.|source=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tbI7rCDTiQg&ab_channel=ArchitecturalDigest

Not an obvious case, sending to DR per COM:UNDEL. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:47, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Althougt these captures were from videos originally posted by another accounts like Architectural Design, since both Vogue and AD are from the same company, Condé Nast, I think Vogue Taiwan has the rights to release it on YouTube with CC licenses, despite original videos did not have that license, becasue some of them have been in use in Wikipedia articles like Kourtney Kardashian --RevengerTime (talk) 01:04, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Need to refer to Commons:Deletion requests/File:Emma Roberts House Tour 2024.jpg as both have the same issue and the same decision should be done to both. en:Condé Nast both Vogue and Architectural Digest are both brands under Condé Nast. Per en:Vogue (magazine) Vogue Taiwan is an international offshoot/edition under Vogue American; it does not have any direct affiliation with AD. I don't believe it's a simple answer but there needs to be consensus among the Wikimedia admins as how much authority Vogue Taiwan has to relicense videos from other YT channels like, AD, GQ, Glamour that are associated with Condé Nast especially when original source is still available on YT and not under the CC license. It would be different if the verified YT channel was "Condé Nast" but it's specifically "Vogue Taiwan" re-posting the videos with subtitles and I don't believe you can just assume Vogue Taiwan has the license rights to change the original video's license. Diddykong1130 (talk) 06:57, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

adding a few admins for potential feedback from their perspectives Aafi, Billinghurst, Yann, Túrelio Diddykong1130 (talk) 19:58, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Emma Roberts House Tour 2024.jpg

This file was initially tagged by Diddykong1130 as Copyvio (Copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: While the video is listed with a Creative Commons Attribution license it's not VOGUE Taiwan's video. The origin of the video is a clip of an interview with Architectural Digest (which the original video does not have the CC license) so VOGUE Taiwan most likely doesn't have the right to put a different license on it. Clip is at roughly 4:27 of the Architectural Digest video.|source=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XxPPdlo72ho&ab_channel=ArchitecturalDigest

Not an obvious case, sending to DR per COM:UNDEL. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:48, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Althougt these captures were from videos originally posted by another accounts like Architectural Design, since both Vogue and AD are from the same company, Condé Nast, I think Vogue Taiwan has the rights to release it on YouTube with CC licenses, despite original videos did not have that license, becasue some of them have been in use in Wikipedia articles like Kourtney Kardashian --RevengerTime (talk) 01:04, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Need to refer to Commons:Deletion requests/File:Kourtney Kardashian 2019.jpg as both have the same issue and the same decision should be done to both. en:Condé Nast both Vogue and Architectural Digest are both brands under Condé Nast. Per en:Vogue (magazine) Vogue Taiwan is an international offshoot/edition under Vogue American; it does not have any direct affiliation with AD. I don't believe it's a simple answer but there needs to be consensus among the Wikimedia admins as how much authority Vogue Taiwan has to relicense videos from other YT channels like AD, GQ, Glamour that are associated with Condé Nast especially when original source is still available on YT and not under the CC license. It would be different if the verified YT channel was "Condé Nast" but it's specifically "Vogue Taiwan" re-posting the videos with subtitles and I don't believe you can just assume Vogue Taiwan has the license rights to change the original video's license. Diddykong1130 (talk) 06:59, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

adding Günther Frager and Tanbiruzzaman since they approved the license reviews of File:Emma Roberts House Tour 2024 02.jpg and File:Emma Roberts House Tour 2024 03.jpg respectively Diddykong1130 (talk) 20:02, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Vogue and Architectural Design are brands not companies. These brands are owned by Condé Nast and Condé Nast can license their content as their wish. The Taiwanese Vogue may be produced under a franchise agreement, but if that is the case, then it is unlikely the Taiwanese franchise has an agreement that allows them to (re)license original Vogue content under CC-BY. I wouldn't mind having that discussion, but it likely belong to COM:VPC. Günther Frager (talk) 22:58, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Photo of barn in foreground with mountains in background.jpg

I realized it is bad for my privacy BRINGit34 (talk) 19:00, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Too late for automatic deletion, could be useful. I don't understand the privacy issue, but you can discuss it with COM:VRT. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:10, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files uploaded by Bramnickatriot (talk · contribs)

No evidence provided on prior publication provided. Lawrence Schiller is still alive, and if these are unpublished until 2014, they are still copyrighted.

reppop^talk 19:16, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I was a retard and appear to still not have fully understood the copyright law, I agree with you that these images with the exception of the one of Jefferey Hunter should be deleted ASAP. Bramnickatriot (talk) 22:40, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@ReppopI agree with you that some of these images should be deleted, however the images of Ariyoshi, Bailey, and Hunter are commisioned portraits meaning that they fall under the criteria of a published work. Bramnickatriot (talk) 16:54, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any evidence that it was published? And that where it was published didn't have a copyright notice? Or that it was truly commissioned and were published elsewhere? reppop^talk 17:14, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't a commisioned portrait fall under the criteria of a published work? Bramnickatriot (talk) 17:59, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Reppop Thinking to it if you want to also delete the images of Hunter and Bailey that might make sense as the photographer might have just aproached them in the middle of the street. However it is almost certain that it was a commisioned portrait of George Ariyoshi if you just look at the image. Bramnickatriot (talk) 18:03, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As I said in the nomination, "No evidence provided on prior publication provided". If there is proof that it was published without a copyright notice on the paper it was published in, I can strike it out. reppop^talk 18:27, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Reppop The more that I think about it, I completley agree. I can't find the backside of the image anywhere which though the copyright claim is unlikely it's not imposible. So I think you should delete it. Bramnickatriot (talk) 19:38, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:25 déc 1918 Wilson Pershing à Chaumont 50025.jpg

Post WW1 postcard from France, possibly PD, more info on the postcard is needed to determine if anonymous. Abzeronow (talk) 22:30, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Tineye and Google searched 45 billion images and could not find anyone attributing an author or claiming an active copyright. --RAN (talk) 16:37, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- There could be a credit on the backside. The uploader could tell us this information. Abzeronow (talk) 18:07, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:3 NKVD--Small File 1-- Med Size.jpg

License is bogus, digitizing doesn't give this a new copyright and permission is not from photographer's estate. 1930s Russian photograph, could be PD. Abzeronow (talk) 22:39, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

License is not bogus, I, Jon K. Chang got the photo from Revmir Khan in Kolkhoz Pravda, outside of Tashkent Uzbekistan. Who-knows-nose (talk) 07:42, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Revmir Khan was the nephew of the man in the right of the three Soviet Koreans in OGPU uniform on March 15, 1932. That man was Grigorii Eliseevich Khan or in Korean (with surname first) Khan Chan Gol/Ger. See my book (book by me, Jon K. Chang) entitled Burnt by the Sun: The Koreans of the Russian Far East. The same photo is part of the cover. See amazon url below.

https://www.amazon.com/Burnt-Sun-Koreans-Russian-Perspectives/dp/0824856783/ref=sr_1_1?crid=3HEYRAMAL50FP&dib=eyJ2IjoiMSJ9.2HECjeG5AyC-Hy_Bre_CXA.4A3s15ZRftUvl-5rFj2XmhaY0NWiMzMPSDFgdM_X_1c&dib_tag=se&keywords=chang+burnt+by+the+sun+the+koreans&qid=1729755863&sprefix=%2Caps%2C142&sr=8-1 Who-knows-nose (talk) 07:45, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Are you an heir to the photographer? If not, license is bogus. Physically possessing a photograph doesn't mean you own the copyright, and copyright vests with the photographer not the subject. However, I do accept you as a source. Do you know who the photographer was? If not, do you know when this photograph was first published? Abzeronow (talk) 17:41, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

PHoto was given to Grigorii Eliseevich Khan. The rest does not matter. It was his photograph. He died in 1938. Abzeronow, you are making up a whole lot of lies. First, the possession of the photograph belong to the Khan family. Revmir Khan on June 9, 2009 or so gave me written permission to use the photo as I please. That is legal copyright in the United States. Second the photo was taken March 15, 1932. The 50 year Soviet copyright expired on March 15, 1982.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_law_of_the_Russian_Federation

Beginning on March 15, 1982 (the 1st day after the 50 year Soviet copyright had expired, this photo is Open Source. You seem to challenge things but to not even understand copyright laws. Let's talk personally, do you have an email. I would like to find out who you are and what government you represent? Russia perhaps. Who-knows-nose (talk) 03:10, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

PHoto was never published. I do my work if you read what I wrote about Burnt by the Sun: The Koreans of the Russian Far East-- I simply spent around 10-12 years on and off with the Soviet Koreans in Russia, Ukraine, Uzbekistan and Kyrgyzstan. I went family to family and conducted interviews.

For the last time, bugger off with this stupidity, the photo was never published. These are family photographs. NOTE THE HANDWRITING UNDERNEATH THE PICTURE, THIS IS A FAMILY PHOTOGRAPH FROM THE KHAN FAMILY!! Note that they only gave the name of the person on the right, their relative, they did not name the other two men. It is not a published state photography, it is a photo belonging to the Khan family. You sir are simply trying to delete the photo which is OPEN SOURCE BY THE WAY AFTER 1982.

Are you are a person in academia, who has crossed passed with J. Chang and simply trying to erase his work? What are the grounds for your baseless attacks. PHoto is from a family photo album, never been published before by Soviet nor Russian state media nor newspapers. If they did, it's illegal photo belonged to the Khan family.

Why did you erase my evidence which I put up again. This below is the written consent from Revmir Khan to Jon K. Chang. I have copyright to use however I see fit.

Khan (Han) Revmir Consent Pics- Using Russian dative-- he gives consent for photos to Jon Chang

Revmir Khan, nephew of Grigorii E. Khan signs consent to Jon K. Chang for photo use

There are no further arguments. You are bogus sir and your stupidity is quite evident. There are no grounds for deleting the photo. It is a family photo. Who-knows-nose (talk) 03:21, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An unpublished 1930s photograph by an unknown photographer is still under copyright in Russia and the United States. These are the facts, ad hominem doesn't help your case. I represent no government, only the interests of the Wikimedia community in my capacity as a volunteer. Abzeronow (talk) 17:22, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]