Commons:Deletion requests/2024/07/22

Picture is sourced to Pinterest, which sources it to Flickr, which says "unknown author, All Rights Reserved" and estimates that it's from the 1920s. Can we safely assume it's PD by now? DS (talk) 03:17, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am the uploader. I have no certain evidence that support this being PD. Deletion is fine with me. Ketil3 (talk) 05:35, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep [1] credits it as "The Stapleton Collection / Bridgeman Images". It seems likely to be PD. Platonides (talk) 02:04, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No permission from the source and author A1Cafel (talk) 04:13, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If its in private collection, then it can't be PD-Poland or PD-anon, because there isn't any proof that this work was published anywhere. ツィプカ・ウエルド (talk) 05:56, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

•  Keep In the absence of contradicting local law, we follow US case law on when an image is "made public". We have been following that an image is made public when it leaves the custody of the photographer. This is an image from a commercial photographer. --RAN (talk) 16:42, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Poor source without evidence of publisher and publication date ツィプカ・ウエルド (talk) 05:58, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Do not understand your claim. Do not need publisher name due to the polish law.--FLLL (talk) 06:39, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

•  Keep In the absence of contradicting local law, we follow US case law on when an image is "made public". We have been following that an image is made public when it leaves the custody of the photographer. This is an image from a commercial photographer. --RAN (talk) 16:53, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No freedom of panorama in France A1Cafel (talk) 06:18, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep This is a grudge request by A1Cafel. Edelseider (talk) 06:55, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Question The bust was created by Liz O'Kane, any prove that the sculptor agrees to publish it under a free license? --A1Cafel (talk) 09:00, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Out of scope - AI image of a common subject for which we have ample freely licensed actual photos. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 07:19, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep Interesting and useful example for how AI tools can be used to create high fidelity realistic textures as useful for video game 3D model design. Prototyperspective (talk) 10:02, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment Before deleting, nominators or the deletor should at least give 3 different links/examples from this Wikimedia commons that have macro photo of human skins .

Commented by Encik Tekateki (talk) 09:24, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There are plenty already at Category:Human skin textures. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 12:02, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep I don’t see any other examples of AI generated skin texture Dronebogus (talk) 18:47, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We don't need an AI version of everything. When we have an actual photo, it's always preferable to use that, because it won't contain the inaccuracies inherent in AI generation. AI's use case is, at best, generating images of things that do not already exist. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 22:30, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete as redundant to other the genuine macro photographs in Category:Human skin textures. Hypothetical future use to illustrate the concept of AI video game textures seems discouraged by An image does not magically become useful by virtue of the argument that it could be used to illustrate a Wikipedia article on X, merely because X happens to be the subject of the photograph. in COM:NOTUSED. Belbury (talk) 08:50, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That quote doesn't mean or imply that all images that aren't in use should be deleted. If I was to create an article on generative AI for video game textures I very much consider using that image and even if I didn't add it, and it would really be not unlikely, then the file would still be quite useful. That it's not one of the most useful images on WMC doesn't mean it's not useful. Prototyperspective (talk) 12:16, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not saying that all images that aren't in use should be deleted, just this one.

Really the hypothetical could be used to illustrate a Wikipedia article on X argument is even weaker when we're talking about AI, because it would only take ten seconds to generate an image like that if one was needed in the future. Belbury (talk) 15:59, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is not the case for many AI images, maybe it's the case for most AI images on WMC. It's not the most valuable but there is no good case for deleting it. In addition, there is a quite realistic educational use-case for which afaik this would be the nearly only and a quite good illustration. One could also make a draft about generative AI in video games but why. I'd support renaming the file to clarify that it's made with AI in the title however. Prototyperspective (talk) 20:00, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If kept, it shouldn't be named "Macro photography". CMD (talk) 08:16, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, it needs to be renamed. Prototyperspective (talk) 10:11, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

[[Category:]]

Exceptionally low quality AI image of a common animal. Out of scope. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 07:21, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So the reason for the request is your own subjective assessment of the quality of AI images? For the sake of clarity, can you point out which criteria you use here? VisbyStar (talk) 07:46, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

VisbyStar: COM:SCOPE says "Must be realistically useful for an educational purpose". The misgeneration issues (left side of the face, front paws, etc.) make it extremely unlikely that anyone will ever use this image.

It is an AI-generated image of a fox figurine so the knowledge value could be, for example, in how first generation AI images are formed in different programs (in this case DALL-E in a historical generation that no longer exists). I think you are misinterpreting the term if you see "inaccuracies" in that the image does not depict a correct fox figurine. The last statement, "make it extremely unlikely that anyone will ever use this image" is probably very difficult for you to know ahead of time. VisbyStar (talk) 20:40, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nicht mehr aktuell. Mein Name ist Johann Talinski, ich bin Mitarbeiter von Kolk 17 und habe die Aufgabe unseren Wikipediaeintrag zu aktualisieren. Das Foto stellt das Figuenmuseum nicht mehr zeitgemäß und adäquat dar, bzw. ist schlicht nicht mehr korrekt. Medpaed02 (talk) 09:38, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, we do not delete pics for that reason. So I created new categories for historic media from 2017 and before. Files in commons are a documentation of a state when taken. Otherwise, if you were right, we would have to delete most of the historic media in commons. Since you point out to work for this museum as a institution, your proposal seems to be a weird approach to museum work.--Kresspahl (talk) 10:44, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

•  Speedy keep COM:INUSE and per Kresspahl. Medpaed02, feel free to edit the relevant Wikipedia articles. Do not try to get historical documentation removed from Commons, for goodness' sake! -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:02, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

no author, no date, no source - wrong licence Goesseln (talk) 09:44, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

•  Keep Now fixed PD-EU-no author disclosure --RAN (talk) 16:48, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It already exists in Wikicommons (LogoRugbyIrun.jpg), and does not comply with copyright. SkyRugby (talk) 09:46, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed copyright status, according to nomination of Jimmi Xu Fenikals (talk) 09:50, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fehlender Hinweis auf Quelle, Urheber, Aufnahme-/Veröffentlichungsdatum und entsprechende Lizenz; "eigenes Werk" darf in Zweifel gezogen werden, da es sich bei der Aufnahme offensichtlich um einen Scan einer Postkarte o.ä. handelt.

Missing Information about origin, original author, original date and missing according license information; probably no "own work" as it's obviously a scan of something like a post card. Luitold (talk) 09:53, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is an early-19th century black and white postcard, which means it is public domain stuff. The picture represents the rear façade of the mansion as seen from three quarters to the right. See Insights into the château de Chaumont at Mainsat / La Serre-Bussière-Vieille in Creuse.--Elnon (talk) 22:58, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

LOL. Photography in the early 19th century??? Plus the Chateau was built in the early 20th century. This photography might be from the 1930s or 1940s and therefore is NOT public domain.--Luitold (talk) 20:37, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My bad. I meant "early 20th century" of course. I own a few postcards of the chateau, none of them is from the 1930s or 1940s, one is from the 1950s. The rest were published in the 1900s at the earliest and in the 1910s at the latest. --Elnon (talk) 22:19, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"I am requesting the removal of this photo since I am the person depicted in the image. The user Gower posted it without my consent and violated my privacy rights." per special:diff/901573771.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 12:30, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

it was Public, admission free event and Polish law allows to photograph famous people who do their job. Gower (talk) 13:05, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Legal act: 81 ust. 2 ustawy o prawie autorskim i prawach pokrewnych. Gower (talk) 13:56, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

•  Keep If you don't want to be photographed, don't appear in public. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:07, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Derivative work of a copyrighted banner A1Cafel (talk) 12:46, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Copyrighted? It's derivative work, but ok, if you want, delete it.--Frettie (talk) 12:52, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

•  Keep Covered by {{FoP-Czech Republic}}. Jklamo (talk) 06:55, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • FoP requires the object to be permanently located, a banner during a protest is clearly not, so still not covered by Czech FoP.--A1Cafel (talk) 03:12, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unused personal image. Nv8200p (talk) 13:04, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep. This is a popular trailhead within this park. Additionally, the very large dead oak tree stump with the old tree laying beside it provides historic information about the natural history of this heavily used public park. For example, there may be future uploads of old photos with this huge tree, before it was cut down. This photo is in COM:SCOPE, @Nv8200pa. Thanks, -- Ooligan (talk) 16:21, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Licence obviously wrong: the article from which the image is taken was published in 2003 and cannot be used with this licence. The author is not Rostovtzeff but obviously Pierre Leriche. Zunkir (talk) 14:33, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep. The author of this plan was neither Rostovtzeff nor Leriche. It was created by Frank Brown and first published in 1944 as Figure 12 in the first part of the 9th preliminary report on the excavations conducted at Dura-Europos by Yale University and the Académie des Inscriptions et Belles Lettres. Cf. the caption of fig. 2 on p. 317 in E. Will, "La population de Doura-Europos: Une évaluation", Syria 65 (1988), pp. 315-321, which gives proper credit to the original publication (something that Leriche does not do). Normally this would still be under copyright, but the International Digital Dura-Europos Archive has been working with Yale University to make the documents related to the excavations freely available online, and this has resulted in the reissuing of digital versions of the preliminary and final reports with new PD licenses. Some of these reports are already hosted on the Commons (see, e.g., File:The Excavations at Dura-Europos Conducted by Yale University and the French Academy of Inscriptions and Letters Preliminary Report of Fifth Season, Oct. 1931-March 1932.pdf or File:The Excavations at Dura-Europos, Final Report IV, Part V The Glass Vessels.pdf); others are hosted elsewhere (Hathi Trust, Internet Archive, etc.). For a full list, click on the link at the bottom of this page. Preliminary report 9, part 1 (the source of this plan) is available at the Hathi Trust, where it is marked "Public domain". Unfortunately, HT uses a Google scan of the volume which does not include the separately printed figures that were stored inside the back cover of the original publication, and fig. 12 was one of those, so we can't upload a higher resolution version from the original source; instead, we'll have to make do with the rather poor low-res version reprinted in Leriche's article. But it seems clear that that the original figure (and therefore Leriche's reproduction of it) are now in the public domain. The image can be kept, but the file page should be updated to reflect the correct creator (Brown), date (1944), original source (Preliminary Report 9.1), and proximal source (Leriche's article in Topoi), and the license should be changed, either to CC-0 or to a customized Yale University Press license like the one used on File:The Excavations at Dura-Europos Conducted by Yale University and the French Academy of Inscriptions and Letters Preliminary Report of Fifth Season, Oct. 1931-March 1932.pdf. I'd be happy to make the changes, but I'll wait until this deletion request is closed before I do in case anyone else wants to weigh in. Choliamb (talk) 18:54, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Likely not own work: visual characteristics suggest screengrabs.

• File:Dedicating the ceremonial 'Constitution Grove'.jpg
• File:Constitution Grove.jpg
• File:Emily Shack and Emily Fortuna.jpg

P 1 9 9  ✉ 14:36, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The photograph is reportedly published in 1972. This means a) that the Yugoslav PD tag does not apply since it covers only photos published in 1966 or earlier. PD-Serbia would be fine as it applies if the relevant photo is published before 1 January 1973, but the same tag indicates that the photo would be PD in Serbia on 1 January 1998, i.e. it does not comply with US PD-1996 tag which states that only material deemed PD in source country on 1 January 1996 is eligible for that US PD criterion. Tomobe03 (talk) 14:39, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, it was my mistake. I put the propper licence now. Mladifilozof (talk) 14:42, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just for the context - Savo Orović was Yugoslav military official and partisan photographer whose works has been published in a lot of books and museum exibitions after the 1945. This date (1972), most likely, is not the first publishing of this photo. --Mladifilozof (talk) 14:50, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

After a little research, I found out the following - Savo Orović published all his photos from the war in the "Album fotografija iz narodnooslobodilačkog rata" in Belgrade in 1951. Two decades later, in 1972, he published only some photographs in the "Ratni dnevnik 1941—1945" as an illustration for the story. I still haven't acquired that photo album from 1951, but we can assume with great certainty that this photo is there among all the others. --Mladifilozof (talk) 20:41, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Logo above COM:TOO. Maybe old enough??? P 1 9 9  ✉ 15:31, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

per COM:Senegal and COM:Mali among others, copyright status of CFA Franc is unknown, delete per COM:PCP Abzeronow (talk) 17:16, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:2000 frank cfa UEMOA b.jpg also affected. Abzeronow (talk) 17:18, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This file was initially tagged by JJMC89 as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: source does not have the specified license; also non-DM artistic work pictured Ankry (talk) 18:45, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If the only problem is the painting, I think it can be cropped out. License needs to be verified, however. Ankry (talk) 18:47, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Info: Deletion of File:Nathaniel pryor and sam houston (cropped).jpg (crop to the pictured work) was requested in ticket:2024072110005906. — JJMC89 (T·C) 23:41, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Possible copyright violation, a trademark of University Clinical Center of the Medical University of Silesia in Katowice (https://www.uck.katowice.pl/) Gabriel trzy (talk) 20:33, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete even though the logo is quite simple, the Polish threshold of originality is extremely low. Günther Frager (talk) 20:43, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That page says rather low, not extremely low. If it's only rather low then I think this logo still seems to be below it. It's a very simple design. Jonteemil (talk) 10:18, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep. A German or an Austrian who writes that the Polish threshold of originality is low... When will you return the Polish works of art looted during World War II? Abraham OFM (talk) 04:38, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are arguing against the copyright of something by referring to the theft of cultural properties? Despite the questionable conclusion of the argument this is not a discussing style we accept on Commons. GPSLeo (talk) 14:44, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

•  Keep This is a really simple logo. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:13, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The source video is from a channel with only 177 subscribers. The video itself has a watermark of Afisha, a defunct Russian magazine. The channel have only a couple of video, also under a bogus CC-BY license as they are taken from a concert and have the logo of the Russian social media platform VK where they were probably downloaded. Günther Frager (talk) 21:35, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sculpture installed in Las Vegas, New Mexico in 2012 [2]. There is no freedom of panorama for 3D works in the US. Günther Frager (talk) 22:06, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This file was initially tagged by Timtrent as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: https://inbusiness.kz/ru/last/v-almaty-proshel-miting-za-snizhenie-pensionnogo-vozrasta-dlya-zhenshin
After checking, I found that this was previously declined as not being a copyright violation, with the request to open a DR if this is disagreed with. Having provided the translated page I am unable to find suitable licencing. The original page is https://inbusiness.kz/ru/last/v-almaty-proshel-miting-za-snizhenie-pensionnogo-vozrasta-dlya-zhenshin
I respectfullly ask for this to be double checked for licencing 🇺🇦 Timtrent 🇺🇦 talk to me 🇺🇦 22:37, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why would Tilali Scanlan own the copyright of this photo? And why would it be freely licensed when it comes from Insta? Schwede66 23:18, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Schwede66 This can be deleted, as well as other pictures I've uploaded depicting her. I thought the original author of the post would just post a CC license in the comments of the post then it would be valid (similar to other articles utilizing this), but I was mistaken as the author did not take the pictures used in the posts. I'll be more careful next time. Arconning (talk) 08:01, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, is there a CC license release in the comments? It's not impossible for Scanlan to own the copyright, e.g. if she commissions the photographer under a contract that transfers the copyright to her. But that's beyond my pay grade; needs a Commons admin to make a call on it. Schwede66 08:04, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• File:Don Julio Ramón Ribeyro.jpg

Bogus usage of {{PD-old-70}}. In 1954 Ribeyro was 25 years old. We need an explicit permission from the copyright holder to keep this image. Günther Frager (talk) 23:47, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]