Commons:Deletion requests/2024/02

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

February[edit]

February 18[edit]

February 23[edit]

File:M01 (cropped).jpg[edit]

This file was initially tagged by IM-yb as Speedy (SD) and the most recent rationale was: F1 (Not 70 years have passed since the death of the creator of the 1987 renovation)
Converted to regular DR to allow for discussion about whether said renovation is relevant for copyright. -- Túrelio (talk) 08:40, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I uploaded the cropped image with the logic that the creator of the building, which was built in 1936, Wilhelm von Weiler, logically died over 70 years before uploading the cropped image (no death date, Greece has not Freedom of Panorama). However, I recently found out that significant renovations had been made, one in 1899 (complete renovation) and another in 1987 when the building was inaugurated as a Museum. The latest renovation leaves no doubt that its creator has died more than 70 years ago. Also, the building today belongs to the Ministry of Culture. Knowing these things now, I am not in favor of keeping this file in the Wikimedia Commons. Based on the above, I request the administrators to delete the image. --IM-yb (talk) 11:44, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can you find details about the 1987 renovation? The photograph would have to show a significant portion of the 1987 renovation to be deleted. Also this was originally built in 1836, and de:Wilhelm von Weiler died in 1878. Abzeronow (talk) 17:05, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Abzeronow the source mentions full renovation. I don't know the details. IM-yb (talk) 17:41, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Since it says that use of the building was limited during this, I'm thinking the renovation was interior rather than of the facade, but would obviously want to know if any of the exterior of the building was included in this. Abzeronow (talk) 17:45, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Abzeronow from the information I have found so far, this is not currently known to me. This was the original appearance of the building, here it is in 1944 with the roof, which was probably added in the 1899 renovation, here it is after 1944 without plasters (because of the battle of Athens) and this is today (no plaster added since 1944). IM-yb (talk) 18:02, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the links. It's difficult for me to tell at the resolution but it looks like the 1987 renovation took away a side staircase that's present in the post-1944 photograph. The main entrance looks basically the same as the post-1944 photo and the general facade looks the same as that post-1944 photograph. It's also possible the entrance is the same in the 1944 photograph (sans plaster) but it's a little difficult to tell since a tree is blocking a view of the central ramp. I essentially agree with you that the 1899 renovation was definitely significant. Abzeronow (talk) 18:12, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Abzeronow thanks for the help too. Here it is January 1945, almost immediately after the battle. There is no information about the creator of the 1899 renovation. The same about 1987. I still think it should be deleted. Which is your opinion? IM-yb (talk) 18:32, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The 1899 renovation can be covered by {{PD-old-assumed}} since we don't have any information about who did it. Abzeronow (talk) 18:38, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Abzeronow is it meant that we are covered with this template in the picture (with the data so far)? What about 1987 renovation? Do you think it's just about the interior? So in short, for now with the addition of the template the image can remain or not? IM-yb (talk) 18:55, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So far from the evidence presented, it appears the 1987 renovation only had the effect on the exterior of removing a staircase on the side. That detail may be de minimis as far as the photograph of the building, it's not an open and shut case either way (to keep or to delete), but I probably would be inclined to keep unless Greek standards on de minimis are as strict as Germany's (if they were, I'd be inclined towards deletion). Abzeronow (talk) 19:02, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Abzeronow I know that Greek law is based on German and French, but I don't know such details about de minimis copyright, I'm looking but I haven't found anything relevant yet. In corresponding de minimis regarding duty and tax, there is what shows Greece having the same amounts as Germany. IM-yb (talk) 20:01, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Abzeronow observing the old view and the present one, I see that the inscription in the center of the building was covered with the purple designs that were on the ends (the purple stripe that spans the building), the shutters were removed from the windows, pieces of wall removed and replaced with iron railings have been added to the third floor, also, the central mullioned window of the old facade takes the form of a purple dome (second floor). Can all of this (removal of stairs, door that became a window, shutters removal, removing a piece of wall and adding iron railings, covering of inscription by purple stripe with details, the central window beeng vaulted, generally scattered pieces on the facade of the building) be considered de minimis? IM-yb (talk) 18:55, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The vaulted window would be the most noticeable thing on the photograph, there is a case that in sum, these changes are not de minimis. It's good though that we now have more information about the 1987 renovations than before though. Abzeronow (talk) 19:59, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at the differences, I notice other changes, such as removing two white plaques that were on the right and left of the main entrance, also, apart from covering the inscription above the main entrance with a purple line with details, there was another inscription exactly above which was erased. IM-yb (talk) 14:06, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Let me remind you here that after the destruction suffered by the building in the Battle of Athens (1944-45), some of the plasters fell off, while eventually the plasters that remained intact were removed, which changed the appearance of the building quite a bit as they remained only the stones from which it was built (not 120 years have passed since the completion of this work).
So we have three instances where changes were made to the building, as follows:
1) Significant renovation of 1899
2) Destruction of part of the building and falling of part of the plasters, then plaster removal (post-1944)
a. This is not an insignificant change, based on the source (In.gr with information from Το Βήμα, second third and fourth paragraph): was an act which was done intentionally to change the appearance of the building, also, in 2010 there was a debate as to whether or not plaster would be added, with the final decision being to remain plaster-free
3) The 1987 renovation (with the aforementioned changes)
 Delete: The last two interventions in the building, cumulatively, have significantly changed the appearance of the building and especially the facade. In this light, I don't see how "de minimis" can be justified. IM-yb (talk) 15:55, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

February 24[edit]

Template:Mvd.ru (and all photos licensed with it)[edit]

I'm not sure that the site is free licensed.

The text on the cite:

'Об использовании информации сайта Все материалы сайта Министерства внутренних дел Российской Федерации могут быть воспроизведены в любых средствах массовой информации, на серверах сети Интернет или на любых иных носителях без каких-либо ограничений по объему и срокам публикации. Это разрешение в равной степени распространяется на газеты, журналы, радиостанции, телеканалы, сайты и страницы сети Интернет. Единственным условием перепечатки и ретрансляции является ссылка на первоисточник. Никакого предварительного согласия на перепечатку со стороны Министерства внутренних дел Российской Федерации не требуется.'

Good, but nothing about derivative works and commercial use.

The user wrote to the administration of the site and received the answer:

'Сообщаем, что условия воспроизведения и использования информации, размещенные в настоящий момент на сайтах МВД России и его территориальных органов, в целом соответствуют лицензии Creative Commons 4.0 International.'

"В целом соответствуют" (in general correspond) means "not exactly correspond" for me. But maybe community will disagree, so let's discuss. Анастасия Львоваru/en 18:35, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Lvova: нужно ли в данной ситуации снова отправлять запрос в пресс-службу МВД России? Между тем, я им писал в обращении о том, что Creative Commons должно подразумевать использование в коммерческих целях. Видимо они не до конца меня поняли... MasterRus21thCentury (talk) 18:46, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Если Вы хотите всё же сделать так, чтобы быть точно уверенным, то нужно. Анастасия Львоваru/en 18:48, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Со своей стороны могу предложить такой пример. —
  • Уважаемый Юрий Викторович! Письмом номер ... от ... 2024 года вы объяснили мне: «Условия воспроизведения и использования информации, размещенные в настоящий момент на сайтах МВД России и его территориальных органов, в целом соответствуют лицензии Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International». Сейчас, сравнивая условия, размещённые на сайтах МВД России и его территориальных органов, я вижу некоторые разночтения со строгими условиями типового лицензионного договора «Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International». Будьте добры, подскажите, пожалуйста, разрешено ли использование творческих произведений, размещённых на сайтах МВД России и его территориальных органов, (а) в коммерческих и промышленных целях, (б) для создания третьими лицами производных творческих произведений, (в) для использования третьими лицами созданных производных творческих произведений в коммерческих и промышленных целях. Ценность широко распространённых типовых лицензионных договоров «Creative Commons» состоит именно в том, что физические и юридические лица, работающие в городах и регионах России, по этим договорам получают право совместно создавать производные творческие произведения и совместно использовать их в своей работе на понятных, одинаковых, типовых условиях, которые позволяют достигать деловых, коммерческих целей. Несколько лет назад мне доводилось встречать ограничения на коммерческое и промышленное использование творческих произведений, опубликованных органами власти, поэтому хотелось бы избежать таких ограничений. Сотрудничая с Правительством Москвы, вы хорошо изучили практику работы по таким договорам, потому что Правительство Москвы в 2015 году перевело все свои сайты на типовую свободную лицензию «Creative Commons Attribution International» сначала 3, а затем 4 версии. Благодарю вас за ответ.
  • — В этом примере я постарался откровенно объяснить читателю, откуда возникает вопрос и зачем нам нужен его ответ. Читатель должен понимать, что мы просим разрешения для того, чтобы получать собственную выгоду за его счёт, вообще ничем не рискуя. Конечно, надо разбить этот текст на абзацы. --PereslavlFoto (talk) 20:03, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • @PereslavlFoto То есть вы сейчас приводите пример, как следует обращаться в российские органы власти за разъяснениями по лицензированию контента? На деле много лет ВМ РУ продвигала идею того, чтобы весь правительственный контент переходил в свободный доступ, как в США, или например был выпущен под единой лицензией, как это есть в Японии с 2016 года. Сами же российские министерства имеют крайне поляризованную политику в области авторских прав - наиболее либеральная она у Минобороны, МЧС (CC BY 4.0) и некоторых других, наиболее строгая - у МИДа, Минздрава, Минтранса и некоторых других министерств. При этом в нынешней ситуации крайне важно перевести на свободную лицензию сайт внешнеполитического ведомства ввиду многочисленных мероприятий с участием главы российской дипломатии Сергея Лаврова, а также его предстоящим 20-летием назначения на данный пост. Письмо я отправил ещё 11 января, но ответа пока так и не получил.
  • Самое интересное из правил распространения государственных медиаматериалов в постсоветских странах является то, что украинский правительственный контент с 2018-2020 годов (поддомены http://gov.ua) фактически стал практически полностью свободным - это касается как центральных органов власти в Киеве, так и многочисленных обладминистраций, городских и сельских советов и он под лицензией CC BY 4.0. На форуме Викисклада я уже поднимал вопрос о том, что на материалы с сайтов с поддоменами gov.ua должен стоять единый шаблон по образцу стандартной лицензии японского правительства, но на это никто не откликнулся. MasterRus21thCentury (talk) 21:16, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Он пытается Вам помочь, предложив готовый текст, Вы ему рассказываете о работе в целом :) Анастасия Львоваru/en 21:34, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Lvova 22 марта 2024 года я отправил повторное письмо в УОС МВД РФ, теперь скорее всего результаты будут в середине апреля. MasterRus21thCentury (talk) 07:56, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Я сочиняю текст, который послал бы я на вашем месте. Я в этом не силён и поэтому вам надо проверить моё сочинение. Вот и всё. Ваши слова насчёт политики я понимаю лучше вас, однако сейчас мы обсуждаем не политику, а МВД. Наконец, меня очень смущает, что вы обсуждаете государственную политику на Викискладе, где нету вообще никого, кто влияет на государственную политику. --PereslavlFoto (talk) 22:27, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Lvova Хочу Вам с печалью сообщить, что МВД отклонило мой запрос на перевод материалов сайта по свободной лицензии. Так что вопрос закрыт. MasterRus21thCentury (talk) 18:50, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
По какой именно причине? Вы звонили им? -- PereslavlFoto (talk) 01:35, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Они написали ему отписку, что все условия у них уже есть на сайте (причем почему-то добавили, что не будут публиковать больше, чем уже публикуют, согласно закону). Анастасия Львоваru/en 11:51, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Это означает, что та сторона не понимает смысл заданного вопроса. Нужно не просто просить разрешение, а подробно объяснять, кому и зачем нужно такое разрешение, и отдельно объяснять, почему не хватает нынешнего. Чиновники с большим трудом понимают, что воспроизведения недостаточно, потому что в их работе никогда не возникают другие задачи. Для них сама задача звучит неожиданно и непонятно: получить права на неограниченное коммерческое использование, не тратя никаких денег на покупку разрешения! То есть разрешить неконтролируемый бизнес с нулевой себестоимостью! Такой подход противоречит привычному порядку. --PereslavlFoto (talk) 12:07, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
В ответе, который цитируется выше, указана несуществующая лицензия Creative Commons 4.0 International. --PereslavlFoto (talk) 10:00, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@PereslavlFoto Хочу сообщить, что в самое ближайшее время переадресую вопрос по этой теме. Обращение на стадии подготовки. MasterRus21thCentury (talk) 08:20, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Senatinform.ru[edit]

The site claims that they are free licensed, but they are not.

The rules are written here. We can met there "3.1. Использование Материалов Сайта, Правообладателем которых является «СенатИнформ», допускается на основании лицензии Creative Commons «Attribution» 4.0", but "4.6. Запрещается использовать Материалы или их фрагменты в ... случаях их прямого коммерческого Использования". Анастасия Львоваru/en 18:45, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Lvova Тут уже два противоречия - с одной стороны свободная лицензия, с другой запрет на коммерческое использование. Однако же это одно из двух электронных СМИ Совета Федерации, чей его сайт лицензирован по CC BY 4.0. Между тем, на Flickr и на Picvario размещаются исходники фотографий, размещённых на сайте Совфеда - так например здесь портреты российских сенаторов в высоком разрешении, а также приводятся исходные данные о дате фотографии, авторе и модели камеры (такое же есть на сайтах МЧС и Минобороны России, а также у Татарстана и некоторых других российских регионов). MasterRus21thCentury (talk) 19:03, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Я не совсем понимаю, как могут помочь отсылки на flickr и на СФ. Они не снимают противоречие. Анастасия Львоваru/en 19:25, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:15 02 2008 0827161001203062737 phil lewis.jpg[edit]

only upload by this user, unlikely to be own work SDudley (talk) 22:52, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: machine translation of the description seems to imply this isn't a work of the uploader. Janhrach (talk) 17:18, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files in Category:Kidnappings during the 2023 Israel–Hamas war[edit]

Per Commons:Deletion requests/File:תמונות החטופים הישראלים בעזה, מרכז הקניות של רובע א' באשדוד, דצמבר 2023 01.jpg. COM:DW - photos of photos. {{FoP-Israel}} allows for freedom of panorama when an image is "permanently situated in a public place", but these aren't permanent installations. Permission from the owners of the original photographs or the illustrators are required.

The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 23:48, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Squirrel Conspiracy You put a lot of effort into looking for pictures of those kidnapped by Hamas. So why didn't you mention this? Commons:Deletion requests/File:Kfir Bibas 9 months old Was brutally kidnapped to Gaza together with his brother Ariel Bibas 4 years old . not yet released.jpg where the image was not deleted because there is a VRT permission received? I haven't checked all the pictures uploaded for deletion, but all those designed by Dede, Nitzan Mintz and Tal Huber should be removed from this Deletion request. They are easy to identify by their design.
See also Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Call for the return the abducted of 2023 Israel–Hamas war
FYI, all the photos I took are still in the same place, they will not be removed at least until all the abducted by Hamas are returned. 4.5 months have passed since October 7, 2023. And there is a chance that they will always remain there as part of the public space in Israel. Have you heard about panorama freedom in Israel?
User:Geagea please add ticket:2023122710003649 to all those pictures. Thank you. Hanay (talk) 03:50, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment Closing admin: please see my comment at Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Call for the return the abducted of 2023 Israel–Hamas war regarding the above-mentioned VRT ticket being insufficient. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 04:55, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to respond with reasons for keeping all the pictures I took and maybe more pictures as well. It takes time. Because at one time 33 different pictures I took were requested to be deleted. See User talk:Hanay
I ask the Commons administrators to give me the time to do so. Do not rush to delete. It is much easier and faster to demand deletion than to write reasons against deletion. Thanks Hanay (talk) 07:22, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, @The Squirrel Conspiracy.
The photos mentioned above that I shot personally (1 & 2) are a classic de-minimis situation.
According to sect. 22 of the 2007 Copyright Law of Israel,

An incidental use of a work by way of including it in a photographic work, in a cinematographic work or in a sound recording, as well as the use of a such work in which the work was thus incidentally contained, is permitted; In this matter the deliberate inclusion of a musical work, including its accompanying lyrics, or of a sound recording embodying such musical work, in another work, shall not be deemed to be an incidental use.

— See here
These photographs contain many supposedly-copyright protected photos, that are beyond particular recognition. Even if we allow ourselves to go nitpicking to the extreme, it would be very unlikely that one whom holds the copyright to these photos would have any claim in these photos.
Also, both are part of Government of Ashdod-led campaign that is ongoing since October. Claiming them as captures of "non permanent installations" would be very inaccurate. These photographs hold importance as a part of a Government campaign, and they do not seem to take away the rights of anyone.
Keep. מקף־עברי (talk) 21:03, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Squirrel Conspiracy, Similarly to this discussion, not all of the images that are in the current discussion require the permission of the copyright owner because their use is marginal, that is - Commons:De minimis.

For example, There are no pictures of abductees in these files:

in these files the images are unrecognizable:

In these files the images are a small part of a larger work:

In these files, the images are shown in insufficient detail and/or with insufficient clarity:

In my opinion there is no need to delete the files whose main element is not pictures of abductees. At the same time, the issue of the permanence of the posters must continue to be investigated, only for the files in which the images of the abductees are a central element that is clearly displayed so that its removal renders the file useless. Chenspec (talk) 12:32, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files in Category:Nili Margalit[edit]

Per Commons:Deletion requests/File:תמונות החטופים הישראלים בעזה, מרכז הקניות של רובע א' באשדוד, דצמבר 2023 01.jpg. COM:DW - photos of photos. {{FoP-Israel}} allows for freedom of panorama when an image is "permanently situated in a public place", but these aren't permanent installations. Permission from the owners of the original photographs are required.

The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 23:49, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the explanations in this link regarding all photographs of installations in the public space in Israel regarding the Iron Swords War Chenspec (talk) 17:21, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Squirrel Conspiracy, Similarly to this discussion, not all of the images that are in the current discussion require the permission of the copyright owner because their use is marginal, that is - Commons:De minimis.

For example, In these files the images are not essential, so removing them will not make the file unusable:

In these files, the images are shown in insufficient detail and/or with insufficient clarity:

In my opinion there is no need to delete the files whose main element is not pictures of abductees. At the same time, the issue of the permanence of the posters must continue to be investigated, only for the files in which the images of the abductees are a central element that is clearly displayed so that its removal renders the file useless. Chenspec (talk) 07:20, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files in Category:Inbar Haiman (Pink)[edit]

Per Commons:Deletion requests/File:תמונות החטופים הישראלים בעזה, מרכז הקניות של רובע א' באשדוד, דצמבר 2023 01.jpg. COM:DW - photos of photos. {{FoP-Israel}} allows for freedom of panorama when an image is "permanently situated in a public place", but these aren't permanent installations. Permission from the owners of the original photographs or the illustrators are required.

The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 23:50, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the explanations in this link regarding all photographs of installations in the public space in Israel regarding the Iron Swords War Chenspec (talk) 17:22, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Squirrel Conspiracy, unfortunately Inbar Haiman was murdered, so in general the use of her images is intended for permanent commemoration. Additionally similarly to this discussion, not all of the images that are in the current discussion require the permission of the copyright owner because their use is marginal, that is - Commons:De minimis.

For example, In these files the images are a small part of a larger work:

In these files the images are not essential, so removing them will not make the file unusable:

In these files, the images are shown in insufficient detail and/or with insufficient clarity:

In my opinion there is no need to delete the files whose main element is not pictures of abductees. At the same time, the issue of the permanence of the posters must continue to be investigated, only for the files in which the images of the abductees are a central element that is clearly displayed so that its removal renders the file useless. Chenspec (talk) 07:15, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Bring Them Home demonstration on Parliament Square 13.jpg[edit]

COM:DW - Per COM:UK, there is no freedom of panorama for 2d graphic works. Permission from the owners of the original photographs is required. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 23:53, 24 February 2024 (UTC) Also:[reply]

Blur the pictures instead? Sebbog13 (talk) 21:14, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files in Category:Bibas family[edit]

Per Commons:Deletion requests/File:תמונות החטופים הישראלים בעזה, מרכז הקניות של רובע א' באשדוד, דצמבר 2023 01.jpg. COM:DW - photos of photos. {{FoP-Israel}} allows for freedom of panorama when an image is "permanently situated in a public place", but these aren't permanent installations. Permission from the owners of the original photographs or the illustrators are required.

The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 23:57, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the explanations in this link regarding all photographs of installations in the public space in Israel regarding the Iron Swords War Chenspec (talk) 17:22, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Squirrel Conspiracy, Similarly to this discussion, not all of the images that are in the current discussion require the permission of the copyright owner because their use is marginal, that is - Commons:De minimis.

For example, In these files the images are a small part of a larger work:

In these files the images are not essential, so removing them will not make the file unusable:

In these files, the images are shown in insufficient detail and/or with insufficient clarity:

In my opinion there is no need to delete the files whose main element is not pictures of abductees. At the same time, the issue of the permanence of the posters must continue to be investigated, only for the files in which the images of the abductees are a central element that is clearly displayed so that its removal renders the file useless. Chenspec (talk) 06:55, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

February 25[edit]

Files in Category:Alon You're Not Alone - The Yellow Piano installation in Yehud[edit]

Per Commons:Deletion requests/File:תמונות החטופים הישראלים בעזה, מרכז הקניות של רובע א' באשדוד, דצמבר 2023 01.jpg. COM:DW - photos of photos. {{FoP-Israel}} allows for freedom of panorama when an image is "permanently situated in a public place", but these aren't permanent installations. Permission from the owners of the original photographs or the illustrators are required.

The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 00:06, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the explanations in this link regarding all photographs of installations in the public space in Israel regarding the Iron Swords War Chenspec (talk) 17:23, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Squirrel Conspiracy, Similarly to this discussion, not all of the images that are in the current discussion require the permission of the copyright owner because their use is marginal, that is - Commons:De minimis.

For example, in these files the images are unrecognizable:

In these files the images are an unwanted intrusion to the image subject which unfortunately cannot easily be removed.

In these files the images are not essential, so removing them will not make the file unusable:

In these files, the images are shown in insufficient detail and/or with insufficient clarity:

In my opinion there is no need to delete the files whose main element is not pictures of abductees. At the same time, the issue of the permanence of the posters must continue to be investigated, only for the files in which the images of the abductees are a central element that is clearly displayed so that its removal renders the file useless. Chenspec (talk) 06:16, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files in Category:Bring them home (text)[edit]

Per Commons:Deletion requests/File:תמונות החטופים הישראלים בעזה, מרכז הקניות של רובע א' באשדוד, דצמבר 2023 01.jpg. COM:DW - photos of photos. {{FoP-Israel}} allows for freedom of panorama when an image is "permanently situated in a public place", but these aren't permanent installations. Permission from the owners of the original photographs or the illustrators are required.

The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 00:06, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the explanations in this link regarding all photographs of installations in the public space in Israel regarding the Iron Swords War Chenspec (talk) 17:23, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Squirrel Conspiracy, Similarly to this discussion, not all of the images that are in the current discussion require the permission of the copyright owner because their use is marginal, that is - Commons:De minimis.

For example, In these files the images are a small part of a larger work:

In these files, the images are shown in insufficient detail and/or with insufficient clarity:

In my opinion there is no need to delete the files whose main element is not pictures of abductees. At the same time, the issue of the permanence of the posters must continue to be investigated, only for the files in which the images of the abductees are a central element that is clearly displayed so that its removal renders the file useless. Chenspec (talk) 05:46, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files in Category:The Way Home from captivity to freedom[edit]

Per Commons:Deletion requests/File:תמונות החטופים הישראלים בעזה, מרכז הקניות של רובע א' באשדוד, דצמבר 2023 01.jpg. COM:DW - photos of photos. {{FoP-Israel}} allows for freedom of panorama when an image is "permanently situated in a public place", but these aren't permanent installations. Permission from the owners of the original photographs or the illustrators are required.

The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 00:10, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files in Category:Hostages Square, Ashdod[edit]

Per Commons:Deletion requests/File:תמונות החטופים הישראלים בעזה, מרכז הקניות של רובע א' באשדוד, דצמבר 2023 01.jpg. COM:DW - photos of photos. {{FoP-Israel}} allows for freedom of panorama when an image is "permanently situated in a public place", but these aren't permanent installations. Permission from the owners of the original photographs or the illustrators are required.

The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 00:11, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@The Squirrel Conspiracy,
As I stated in another discussion (also led by yourself), this is a De minimis situation, according to sect. 22 of the 2007 Copyright Law of Israel.
Specifically regarding the candles photograph – your claim, that it requires "Permission from the owners of the original photographs or the illustrators" as its "lacking" freedom of panorama is straight-up outrageous.
It is a permanent street exhibition, held in Ashdod's City – most public place of all – Square, meant to stay there till the end of the 2023 Israel-Hamas war. Please elaborate your claim for lack of freedom of panorama in these important photographs, as it is unclear and puzzling, to say the least. מקף־עברי (talk) 21:11, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files in Category:Bumper stickers in Hostages Square[edit]

Per Commons:Deletion requests/File:תמונות החטופים הישראלים בעזה, מרכז הקניות של רובע א' באשדוד, דצמבר 2023 01.jpg. COM:DW - photos of photos. {{FoP-Israel}} allows for freedom of panorama when an image is "permanently situated in a public place", but these aren't permanent installations. Permission from the owners of the original photographs or the illustrators are required.

The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 00:13, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the explanations in this link regarding all photographs of installations in the public space in Israel regarding the Iron Swords War Chenspec (talk) 17:23, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Squirrel Conspiracy, Similarly to this discussion, not all of the images that are in this discussion require the permission of the copyright owner because their use is marginal, that is - Commons:De minimis.

For example, In these files the images are a small part of a larger work:

In these files the images are not essential, so removing them will not make the file unusable:

In these files, the images are shown in insufficient detail and/or with insufficient clarity:

These files show pictures of the murdered and not of the abducted, which as explained in previous discussions are in a permanent state and are used for commemorative purposes:

In my opinion there is no need to delete the files whose main element is not pictures of abductees. At the same time, the issue of the permanence of the posters must continue to be investigated, only for the files in which the images of the abductees are a central element that is clearly displayed so that its removal renders the file useless. Chenspec (talk) 05:23, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files in Category:Kidnapped from Israel posters in Hostages Square[edit]

Per Commons:Deletion requests/File:תמונות החטופים הישראלים בעזה, מרכז הקניות של רובע א' באשדוד, דצמבר 2023 01.jpg. COM:DW - photos of photos. {{FoP-Israel}} allows for freedom of panorama when an image is "permanently situated in a public place", but these aren't permanent installations. Permission from the owners of the original photographs or the illustrators are required.

The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 00:18, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the explanations in this link regarding all photographs of installations in the public space in Israel regarding the Iron Swords War Chenspec (talk) 17:23, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Squirrel Conspiracy regardless of the argument you made in this discussion regarding the issue of the permanence of the posters of the abductees (which is still under discussion there), not all of the images that are in this discussion require the permission of the copyright owner because their use is marginal, that is - Commons:De minimis. For example,

This file does not show pictures of abductees at all:

In these files the images are not essential, so removing them will not make the file unusable:

In these files, the images are shown in insufficient detail and/or with insufficient clarity:

The photos that appear in these files are of Eden Zakaria עדן זכריה, who unfortunately is no longer defined as a kidnapped because she was murdered. You can see the addition of the letters R.I.P in handwriting. Because death is not a condition that can change due to future developments in the war, this installation must be treated as permanent for commemoration purposes, as I explained in this discussion.

Similarly, Ron Sherman's (רון שרמן) photos are no longer used to raise awareness but to commemorate him after his murder (the word murdered in Hebrew appears in handwriting above the illustration of the broken heart).

In my opinion there is no need to delete the files whose main element is not pictures of abductees. At the same time, the issue of the permanence of the posters must continue to be investigated, only for the files in which the images of the abductees are a central element that is clearly displayed so that its removal renders the file useless. Chenspec (talk) 22:58, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files in Category:Israel flag with a red heart[edit]

COM:DW - Photo of a photo. Permission from the photographers whose work is depicted is required.

The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 03:17, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the explanations in this link regarding all photographs of installations in the public space in Israel regarding the Iron Swords War Chenspec (talk) 17:19, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Squirrel Conspiracy you claimed in this discussion that "These posters are there to raise awareness of the hostages. If a peace treaty were signed tomorrow and all of the hostages were released, the posters would be taken down. That means they're not permanent." - This argument is not valid regarding the pictures that appear on the two stickers in this discussion, because these are not pictures of abductees but of murdered people. Their goal is not to raise awareness, but to commemorate. Because the nature of death is permanent, their condition is not expected to change following possible future developments of the war. Accordingly, no change is expected in the purpose of the stickers. That is, the need and continued use of these stickers is permanent. Chenspec (talk) 20:57, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files in Category:Hayat Tahrir al-Sham[edit]

The design of the calligraphy and the center border is vastly too complex for PD-textlogo

The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 05:21, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Flags and other depictions of the shahada and other Arabic calligraphy are prominent on Commons, many of which contain the same PD-textlogo claim (among many others, see File:Sultan Murat Tümeni Flag.svg, File:Flag of the Turkistan Islamic Party in Syria.svg, File:Flag of the Islamic Renaissance Party of Tajikistan.svg, and even File:Flag of Hamas.svg). While in my personal opinion this claim is justified, as such calligraphy is just text, I'm neither a copyright lawyer nor active enough on Commons to feel I should weigh in in favor of maintaining them. But if the Hayat Tahrir al-Sham flags go, a lot more probably need to as well. Mnmazur (talk) 05:52, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can handwriting be protected by copyright? If not, these flags are in the public domain. -- Le Petit Chat (talk) 13:56, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
calligraphy = simple handwriting Trade (talk) 19:47, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]


File:Russian nazi POW.jpg[edit]

See also Commons:Deletion requests/Files from "PD UA Military" A1Cafel (talk) 09:36, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is also a daily news work that constitute regular press information, which is also made into public domain under Ukrainian copyright law Article 10(a). 罗放 (talk) 20:16, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:LL-Q12497929 (mis)-Swarabakti-calak (v, swift).wav[edit]

wrong qualifier for the word class when recorded through LL; rerecorded as File:LL-Q12497929 (mis)-Swarabakti-calak (adj, swift).wav Swarabakti (talk) 12:51, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Neues Emblem und Wappen von Baerl.jpg[edit]

Wiedergänger, siehe https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Archive/2021/02/26#File:Vorschlag_f%C3%BCr_neues_Wappen_von_Rhein-Baerl.jpg GerritR (talk) 19:01, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kein Wiedergänger (wurde vor der Löschung der anderen Datei hochgeladen), aber enzyklopädische Relevanz und Nutzung ist ausgeschlossen (out of scope). --Millbart (talk) 11:09, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files uploaded by Pimpinellus (talk · contribs)[edit]

copyright violation; no permission by author of texts / photos / pictures; no freedom of panorama.

Martin Sg. (talk) 21:13, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Martin, es ist zwar zutreffend, dass hier verschiedene Urheberrechtsprobleme vorliegen, es wäre m.E. aber konstruktiver gewesen, nicht all diese Dateien in eine Sammel-DR zu stecken, sondern sie zumindest nach der Art des Urheberrechtsproblems bzw. der möglichen Lösungsfindung zu gruppieren. Es gibt z.B. Bilder, die (fast) nur aus Text vom Museum selbst bestehen (sofern Schöpfungshöhe vorhanden, sollte eine Genehmigung eher leicht zu erhalten sein) oder wo eine Reproduktion anscheinend durch den Museumsfotografen erfolgt ist (Genehmigung vermutlich zu erhalten), usw. --Túrelio (talk) 21:08, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Danke Túrelio für Dein Bemühen um eine konstruktive Lösung. Ich habe in den Museen nachgefragt, und wurde von allen dreien darauf hingewiesen, dass es bei Infotafeln mit Hinweisen vom Museum und auch bei Überblicksbildern von Ausstellungsbereichen seitens der Museen keine urheberrechtlichen Bedenken gibt. Da ich in derlei cc-Feinheiten nicht so versiert bin wäre es eine große Hilfe, wenn Du oder Martin Sg. die Bilder mit echter Schöpfungshöhe definieren könntest, ich würde mich dann gerne bemühen, hierfür eine Freigabe zu veranlassen. Vielen Dank und herzliche Grüße aus München --Pimpinellus((D)) • MUC•K•T 07:50, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nachtrag: Ich hab eben mit den Museumsleuten gesprochen, denen ich letzte Woche die Links zu den Freigabe-Anfragen geschickt habe. Die Freigabe ginge problemlos, doch teilweise gehen die Links in Leere, da die Fotos gelöscht sind. Gibt es einen Weg, die Fotos, die die Leute gerne freigeben würden, sichtbar zu machen? Gruß und Dank! --Pimpinellus((D)) • MUC•K•T 12:35, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Arrgh, solch einen Wust lieben wir im Support. Neben den genannten Freigaben kam per Ticket:2024030410006016 auch die Freigabe für die Dateien

die ich im Block bearbeiten konnte. Sowie für vier gelöschte Dateien, die hier nicht aufgeführt sind und für die ich Wiederherstellung beantragen werde.

Wenn ich auf weitere Freigaben im Posteingang stoße, bekommt Ihr mehr von mir hier zu lesen.

Gruß, --Mussklprozz (talk) 20:50, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Danke lieber Kollege Mussklprozz, was Deine Wust-Bemerkung anbelangt, wäre es vielleicht zielführender, wenn Ihr auf die mehr oder weniger willkürlichen Massenlösch-Aktionen Euer Augenmerk richten würdet. Die Anmerkungen hierzu u.a. seitens des Deutschen Museums möchte ich Dir und Euch ersparen, wie der Kollege Túrelio hier angemerkt hat, scheint da viel Übereifer am Werk zu sein. Den im Vorfeld zu bremsen ist vielleicht weniger arbeitsaufwenig als die von Dir angesprochene Wust-Aufarbeitung. Abgesehen von dem schlechten Eindruck von Wikipedia, den solche Aktionen auf die ungemein kooperativen MUC•K•T - Kooperationspartner macht, ist zu befürchten, dass diese zeitraubenden Vorgänge gut gewillte Wikipedians vertreibt. Viele Grüße --Pimpinellus((D)) • MUC•K•T 21:26, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Naja, die Löschanträge waren nicht willkürlich, die hatten im Grunde schon ihre Berechtigung. Auf Commons muss man mit gutem Grund auf sowas achten. Es wäre sinnvoll, Freigaben für so etwas immer gleich dabei zu haben. Wir können ja für die Rechtslage letztlich auch nichts, wegen mir wäre Vieles sehr viel freier. Aber - das ist alles klärbar. @Mussklprozz - ich würde meinen, wir lieben jede Freigabe. Dass das nicht immer Handgerecht kommt, liegt ja auch daran, dass wir es den Leuten auch nicht immer gerade leicht machen. Solche Kommentare sind jedenfalls, wenn sie gesehen werden, auch nicht hilfreich. Denn wer wird sich denn noch die Arbeit mit den Freigaben machen, wenn dann solche Reaktionen kommen? Marcus Cyron (talk) 23:54, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Eure Hinweise Mussklprozz und Marcus Cyron leuchten mir ein, weniger einleuchtend scheint mir die rechtliche Lage bei Überblicksfotos von Ausstellungen, die wie bei diesem Löschkandidaten zahlreiche Einzelwerke enthalten, für die ein Museum natürlich kein alleiniges Urheberrecht besitzt. Unterliegen derlei Überblicksfotos der cc-Freigabe-Pflicht, wie beim Gros der Fotos in dem Massenlöschantrag, oder gibt es da Abgrenzungen? Ähnlich ist es mit der Abbildung von Infotexten zu Artefakten wie in obiger Löschliste Aufnahmen in Glyptothek, Stadtmuseum, Deutsches Museum, auch wenn sie uns Wikipdians zuliebe so was freigeben, sehen die Museumsleute derlei Freigabeprozeduren als Belästigung. Da wäre hilfreich, wenn solche Massenlöschlisten wie Túrelio oben vorschlägt, auf das Notwendige reduziert würden, von Leuten, die sich damit auskennen. Gruß und Dank --Pimpinellus((D)) • MUC•K•T 08:42, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Moin @Pimpinellus, im Prinzip geht es darum, ob die abgebildeten Kunstwerke als eigenständige Objekte in dem Bild fungieren, oder ob sie unbedeutendes Beiwerk sind. Im angelsächsischen Rechtsraum und hier auf Commons ist de minimis der einschlägige Begriff. Das wird hier im Sinne des Vorsichtsprinzips recht streng gehandhabt: sobald ein Objekt klar erkennbar ist, wird eine Freigabe der Künstlerin verlangt. Falls diese nicht zu bekommen ist, behilft man sich gelegentich mit Weichzeichnen oder Verpixeln. Gruß, Mussklprozz (talk) 12:06, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • VRTS I have just accepted permission for “File:2024-01-27 Ausstellung Antike in Bayern 2.jpg” under ticket:2024030410006016. --Mussklprozz (talk) 13:13, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Vielen Dank Mussklprozz, Túrelio und Marcus Cyron für Eure freundlichen Hinweise. Wir sind in dauerndem Kontakt mit den mit uns hier in München gut kooperierenden Museen und haben die Problematik mit den Leuten dort besprochen, und haben das auch an unserem gestrigen MUC-Stammtisch diskutiert. Die Glyptoleute geben alles frei, auch wo es nicht vonnöten ist. Beim Stadtmuseum ist die übereinstimmende Meinung, dass die meisten LA-Bilder keiner CC-Freigabe bedürfen, weshalb wir die Kolleginnen und Kollegen dort nicht weiter behelligen wollen. Wenn sich jemand die Mühe machen will, den Wust der obigen Anträge auf Relevanz zu selektieren, wäre das schön, uns hier fehlt die Expertise, um da kontruktiv mitreden zu können. Vielen Dank und herzliche Grüße --Pimpinellus((D)) • MUC•K•T 09:43, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

February 27[edit]

File:Jose Agustin de Lecubarri COA2.svg[edit]

Not correct coat of arms (uploaded by me) DonBlanzaco (talk) 16:45, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose, en principio. @DonBlanzaco: No tengo especial interés, pero por curiosidad: ¿dónde está la incorrección? No dices cual es el gravísimo error y donde está la fuente que acrediten hacer esta solicitud de borrado. Gracias. Echando una mano 17:03, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Además, tengo una pregunta sobre el archivo File:Grandes armas de Lecubarri.svg: aparece con corona ducal y manto de grande de España: ¿A qué título nobiliario corresponde? Gracias.
Echando una mano 17:12, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

February 28[edit]

File:JinAi.jpg[edit]

This was kept as part of a previous mass deletion discussion Commons:Deletion_requests/File:HuiOfJin.jpg, however for this particular image I suspect wrongly. I see no evidence either from websource nor stylistically that it is old enough to be out of copyright; websearch suggests it is one of a series of fairly modern line drawing images of historic figures. I cannot read Chinese; perhaps someone who does can make a determination with better information one way or another. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 21:13, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, this photo is not a PD-OLD Picture after all Historydiver (talk) 12:57, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No progress in finding actual source or establishing actual free license since February. I suggest closing with deletion. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk)

February 29[edit]

File:Co-fondateurs de Tricassinux juillet 2020.png[edit]

Merci de la suppression du fichier suite à une mise à jour de la page Jre10120 (talk) 08:08, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Genetic distances between ancient Egyptians and modern populations.png[edit]

Forgery ?. The text written below the figure in the photo is not from the study, the text written in the study under this figure is: "Analysis results of the HVR-1 modern populations in relation to our ancient meta-population of 90 ancient Egyptians.", not "Fst genetic distance between ancient Egyptians and modern populations" in the author photo which alone means an autosomal Fst whereas the real text in the study specifies that it was Fst comparison on HVR-1 in mtDNA only

I also think that the file was uploaded under a wrong license. Chafique (talk) 18:40, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/2024/02&oldid=844172168"