Commons:Deletion requests/2024/06/27: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Content deleted Content added
m Bot: Archiving 19 threads to Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2024/06/27 |
(No difference)
|
Latest revision as of 12:35, 11 July 2024
Deletion requests on 27 June 2024
June 27
[edit]Low quality blurred crop from File:Calif Least Tern.jpg, not separately useful with many other better photos of same subject MPF (talk) 00:18, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, it's a crop. Resolution and blurriness are same as in original image, however. --dave pape (talk) 02:41, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
- @Davepape: - yes; the original is worth keeping for historical reference, but I didn't see any point in keeping derivatives of it where the cropping makes the blurring more obvious - MPF (talk) 09:23, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by TheImaCow as no source (No source since).
Film negative from 1944. We'd need to know the photographer to determine copyright status, otherwise, we might have to wait until 2065. Abzeronow (talk) 02:02, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
Files found with Special:Search/2022 Commonwealth Games final Digbeth Street Art
[edit]No FoP for "graphic works" such as posters or murals in the United Kingdom.
- File:2022 Commonwealth Games final Digbeth Street Art 2 (52313523232).jpg
- File:2022 Commonwealth Games final Digbeth Street Art 1 (52313523937).jpg
- File:2022 Commonwealth Games final Digbeth Street Art 4b (52314632503).jpg
- File:2022 Commonwealth Games final Digbeth Street Art 6 (52314749194).jpg
- File:2022 Commonwealth Games final Digbeth Street Art 10 (52313523112).jpg
- File:2022 Commonwealth Games final Digbeth Street Art 13 (52314631798).jpg
- File:2022 Commonwealth Games final Digbeth Street Art 4a (52313523747).jpg
- File:2022 Commonwealth Games final Digbeth Street Art 9 (52314763055).jpg
- File:2022 Commonwealth Games final Digbeth Street Art 5 (52313523577).jpg
- File:2022 Commonwealth Games final Digbeth Street Art 8 (52314319631).jpg
- File:2022 Commonwealth Games final Digbeth Street Art Custard Factory (52313522722).jpg
- File:2022 Commonwealth Games final Digbeth Street Art 9a (52314762905).jpg
- File:2022 Commonwealth Games final Digbeth Street Art 11 (52314631948).jpg
- File:2022 Commonwealth Games final Digbeth Street Art 4 (52313523812).jpg
- File:2022 Commonwealth Games final Digbeth Street Art 3 (52314320101).jpg
- File:2022 Commonwealth Games final Digbeth Street Art 12 (52314748699).jpg
- File:2022 Commonwealth Games final Digbeth Street Art 7 (52314763180).jpg
- File:2022 Commonwealth Games final Digbeth Street Art Black Sabbath (52314748529).jpg
- File:2022 Commonwealth Games final Dead Wax Digbeth (52314746275).jpg
A1Cafel (talk) 03:20, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
Files in Category:Narragansett Pier Railroad
[edit]Images are sourced from modern web pages and books, with no proof of pre-1929 publication. Proof of publication is needed for {{PD-US-expired}}.
- File:Boon Street station, unknown date.jpg
- File:Narragansett Pier Railroad. Station at South Pier near Ocean Road. Built in 1876. Incl turntable. Closed in 1887 and than used as stores.jpg
- File:Narragansett Pier Railroad. Steam locomotive No 3 'Wakefield' built and delivered in 1883.jpg
- File:Narragansett Pier Railroad. Steam locomotive No 4 'Narragansett' built in Rhode Island in 1891. This was particularly popular with the engineers.jpg
- File:Nn Narragansett Pier Railroad. Steam locomotive on steel bridge.jpg
- File:NPRR 4-4-0 steam locomotive No 6, built built by Manchester as NYPandB 25, became New Haven Number 1937, Class D-12, used until 1920 and scrapped in 1923.jpg
- File:NPRR 4-6-0 steam locomotive No 5, built by Rhode Island in 1889 for the Empire Lumber Co, bought by NPRR in 1894 and retired in 1917.jpg
- File:NPRR No 1 'Narragansett' built by Mason in 1876 and used until about 1891.jpg
Pi.1415926535 (talk) 04:32, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
Would {{PD-old-assumed}} be more precise, to describe these files? --NearEMPTiness (talk) 04:44, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
- No, {{PD-old-assumed}} is not valid whatsoever for US files, and it's concerning that you would suggest that without even looking at the license. Looking at your recent uploads, the majority have incorrectly applied licenses and/or outright lack US public domain justification altogether, which indicates to me that this is a much larger issue than just these files. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 04:51, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
Keep To be eligible for a copyright in the United States you had to register for a copyright up to 1989. I cannot find these in the USCO registration database under any variations of the name. We also have US case law that an image is made public when it leaves the custody of the photographer. We generally reserve "unpublished" for when we have a provenance where the image was deposited in an archive by the creator, like we have with commercial archives, like Getty, where they claim the image is under an active copyright. The license should be PD-US-expired. --RAN (talk) 06:37, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
- We also have US case law that an image is made public when it leaves the custody of the photographer: This is directly at odds with Commons:Publication. If you can provide case law that contradicts it, please start a discussion to change that page rather than making unsourced claims at DRs. There is no evidence for when any of these photographs were published as defined by US law, nor even when they left the custody of the photographer. Commons requires actual proof of publication, not unverifiable assumptions about provenance. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 06:47, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
- You can read the relevant case law here: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Minerva Kohlhepp Teichert 1908.jpg to see how courts have interpreted the paragraph quoted in Commons:Publication. Case law is the law, until new case law overturns previous rulings or Congress passes new legislation. --RAN (talk) 06:55, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
- I don't find that relevant to this discussion, since these are files with no information about their early provenance. We cannot assume that these photos were published before 1929 simply because it is convenient for Commons. If these photos were taken by a private individual for their personal collection, or a company employee for company archives, they very well may have remained unpublished by any legal definition until long past 1929. If the earliest verifiable publication is a still-copyrighted book, we absolutely must assume the images are still copyrighted as well. Pinging User:Clindberg in case you have additional thoughts. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 19:17, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
- PD-old-assumed was also meant for the U.S. -- 120 years from creation is the outside term for works from anonymous authors. There are some grandfather clauses that can have a longer copyright if there was well-timed publication long after creation, but that is rare. Most works are made to be published, and we often assume that -- we don't delete over just any theoretical doubt, because it's almost always possible to put some doubt on files. If there is some indication that publication could have been delayed, such as coming from an estate's files or something like that, it could raise that doubt to a more significant one and we'd need better publication info. Some of these state they were from a collection of a Edward J. Ozog -- to be collected in the first place, they would almost certainly have had to be published. Others seem to come from a book, but not sure the book mentions a provenance (which would hint towards PD status, if they did not). I'm not sure all of them qualify for PD-old-assumed, though some of them were definitely 1800s photos and would. Most of the rest were probably created in the 1800s, as photos / postcards / etc. would have been more common with new equipment rather than ones near the end of their lives. None of them feel like family snapshots that remained unpublished -- they look like postcard-worthy photos and that sort of thing. Some of them definitely
- PD-old-assumed was also meant for the U.S. -- 120 years from creation is the outside term for works from anonymous authors. There are some grandfather clauses that can have a longer copyright if there was well-timed publication long after creation, but that is rare. Most works are made to be published, and we often assume that -- we don't delete over just any theoretical doubt, because it's almost always possible to put some doubt on files. If there is some indication that publication could have been delayed, such as coming from an estate's files or something like that, it could raise that doubt to a more significant one and we'd need better publication info. Some of these state they were from a collection of a Edward J. Ozog -- to be collected in the first place, they would almost certainly have had to be published. Others seem to come from a book, but not sure the book mentions a provenance (which would hint towards PD status, if they did not). I'm not sure all of them qualify for PD-old-assumed, though some of them were definitely 1800s photos and would. Most of the rest were probably created in the 1800s, as photos / postcards / etc. would have been more common with new equipment rather than ones near the end of their lives. None of them feel like family snapshots that remained unpublished -- they look like postcard-worthy photos and that sort of thing. Some of them definitely
- I don't find that relevant to this discussion, since these are files with no information about their early provenance. We cannot assume that these photos were published before 1929 simply because it is convenient for Commons. If these photos were taken by a private individual for their personal collection, or a company employee for company archives, they very well may have remained unpublished by any legal definition until long past 1929. If the earliest verifiable publication is a still-copyrighted book, we absolutely must assume the images are still copyrighted as well. Pinging User:Clindberg in case you have additional thoughts. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 19:17, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
- You can read the relevant case law here: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Minerva Kohlhepp Teichert 1908.jpg to see how courts have interpreted the paragraph quoted in Commons:Publication. Case law is the law, until new case law overturns previous rulings or Congress passes new legislation. --RAN (talk) 06:55, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
- We also have US case law that an image is made public when it leaves the custody of the photographer: This is directly at odds with Commons:Publication. If you can provide case law that contradicts it, please start a discussion to change that page rather than making unsourced claims at DRs. There is no evidence for when any of these photographs were published as defined by US law, nor even when they left the custody of the photographer. Commons requires actual proof of publication, not unverifiable assumptions about provenance. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 06:47, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
- The issue with these images is we don't know when they were published. I often upload old images like this, but typically they are from a published source (a newspaper, journal, etc) where it is straightforward to verify public domain status based on date of publication. I can verify some of these photos were published in A Short Haul to the Bay in 1969 (published with a copyright notice), but if that were the date of publication it wouldn't necessarily make these public domain. Personally I find it ridiculous that these photos from 100+ years ago might still be copyrighted, but we have to follow U.S. copyright law. As much as I'd like to say RAN's cited case law means we can assume public domain, I'm not fully convinced and these images strictly speaking shouldn't be allowed based on the wording of COM:Publication. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 14:06, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
- Also, for what it's worth, I found a freely licensed version of the last photo in this list, which has been uploaded here. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 14:55, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
No freedom of panorama in Lithuania A1Cafel (talk) 04:56, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
- Das ergibt wenig Sinn. Mit der Bitte um differenziertere Hinweise betreffs eingeschränkter Panoramafreiheit in Litauen. Barnos (talk) 07:03, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
no proof of license; website linked does not mention license and it's atypical for photographers to have CC photos without explicitly stating so Ringerfan23 (talk) 07:45, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
- @Ringerfan23: Hi! I believe this was uploaded by the photographer, Beth Herzhaft. The first commons uploader is an unrelated user who transferred it from enwiki way back in the day, but if you see the Original upload log it says that the original uploader is Herzco on enwiki, who uploaded a few other photos by this photographer (whose site is herzco.com). That user's other uploads include File:William fichtner.jpg which is properly VRTd, presumably with proof Herzco is Beth Herzhaft and that any other uploads by that user would also be valid. DemonDays64 (talk•contribs•uploads) 15:29, 27 June 2024 (UTC) (please ping on reply)
Не может быть собственной работой, очевидное копирование из не указанной газеты или книги -- Tomasina (talk) 09:24, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
- English: 'Blatant false austhorship, not own work, clearly copyright violation from a book or a newspaper'. — Werter1995 (talk) 16:44, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
Unused by any projects. Original author doesn't appear notable. I struggle to see how this is in scope. William Graham (talk) 15:31, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
- I concur with what you said. - THV | ♂ | U | T - 00:44, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
Redundant and low-quality. A larger, clearer version is Copernicus crater AS17-151-23260.jpg. Jstuby (talk) 17:29, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Sjö as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: I believe (but am not sure) that the "M" in the shape of a mammoth reaches the threshold of originality as more than simple geometrical shapes. Yann (talk) 17:33, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
- What is the source country of this logo? PaterMcFly (talk) 06:11, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
- Mammotion appears to be a Chinese company [1]. Sjö (talk) 07:00, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
duplicated and outdated. I'm the author. there is another file for its purpose: File:Brasão de Ricardo André Longhi Frantz.jpg tetraktys (talk) 18:55, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
No permission, taken from https://kkcrvenazvezda.rs/ , KK CRVENA ZVEZDA 2023 | ALL RIGHTS RESERVED Ранко Николић (talk) 18:59, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
- As I wrote in Commons:Deletion requests/File:FK Kolubara logo.svg, another pending DR regarding a Serbian logo, the Red Star Belgrade logo also seems like a pretty uncomplex text-logo but COM:TOO Serbia doesn't exist so I guess we can't know for sure. Jonteemil (talk) 01:27, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
No permission, taken from https://fkkolubara.rs/ , Copyright © 2024 FK Kolubara Ранко Николић (talk) 19:04, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
- Seems like a pretty uncomplex text-logo but COM:TOO Serbia doesn't exist so I guess we can't know for sure. @Ранко Николић: do you have any information about the threshold of originality in Serbia? Jonteemil (talk) 21:11, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
- A gif version of this logo, File:FKKolubara.gif, was kept by Yann in Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Nado158 as PD-textlogo. Jonteemil (talk) 22:32, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
- FYI now File:FKKolubara.gif has also been nominated for deletion with the exact same rationale so I closed it and included it here instead since they're the same logo, only different MIME versions.Jonteemil (talk) 08:16, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
Unused, very low-quality photo of debatable importance. Sinigh (talk) 19:04, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
- Similar files by the same uploader that can be deleted following the same rationale:
- If the above files are deleted, six additional files of dubitable usefulness and quality can be found and assessed here: Special:ListFiles/1srb
- Judging by this uploader's history on enwiki, their files were uploaded for promotional purposes.
- Thanks in advance.
- Sinigh (talk) 19:24, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
Unused photo of non-notable persons, no educational value, out of scope. P 1 9 9 ✉ 19:07, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
- Value to the history of Fort Mill, SC 2607:F280:3016:21A:ADCD:F095:E260:4880 19:18, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by FuzzyMagma as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: The image clearly does not belong to the uploader, as it was taken around 1928. The worrier is also Shilluk and not Nuer (see the white garment) Yann (talk) 21:43, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
- Comment: if the source and date of this image are correctly identified it may be saved under "PD-Sudan", if it is not licensed. FuzzyMagma (talk) 22:06, 27 June 2024 (UTC)