Commons:Deletion requests/2024/06/13

This template has multiple issues and should be either fixed or deleted. According to CRT "The situation regarding copyright is unclear" with 4 possible copyright laws which might be applicable: Jordanian, Israeli, Egyptian and British and each one has different terms. The template itself is not comprehensible

• First sentence says that work is PD and to see CRT for details: the page that states that copyright situation is unclear
• Second sentence mentions British law, "Arab Copyright Treaty of 1981" (which does not seem to apply to Palestine), "Basic Law of governmental Palestine" (?) and " Israeli copyright laws" in a way that makes no sense to me.
• Sentence three: mirrors {{PD-anon-70}}
• Sentence four: mirrors {{PD-IsraelGov}}

I think we should delete this template and review handful of files using it to see if {{PD-anon-70}} or {{PD-IsraelGov}} apply. Than maybe we can write a new template to cover British Copyright Ordinance of 1924 and Copyright Act of 1911, if there is consensus that those laws still apply, as seem to be the case in CRT and Village pump. --Jarekt (talk) 00:09, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Aymatth2, JWilz12345, Clindberg, and Asclepias: --Jarekt (talk) 00:15, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think our best guess is that the UK 1911 Copyright Act (as applied to Palestine in 1924 or something) is still the law in place. I don't think any of Egypt, Jordan, or Israel has applied their copyright laws there, even if under their control. I'm not sure we should delete the tag, as it would be useful for works that originate from there, as the law could easily change and we may need to identify them. The tag claims that Israeli laws apply, and not sure I've ever seen a reference for that statement. The 1924 ordinance (which applied the UK 1911 law, with some small modifications) is in place though. I think we should change this to be a 50pma tag basically, with photos 50pr. I would not try to use generic tags as it is useful to be able to categorize/check photos using this tag in case the situations change. Carl Lindberg (talk) 00:51, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete "I think our best guess is that the UK 1911 Copyright Act (as applied to Palestine in 1924 or something) is still the law in place." I'm very uncomfortable with guessing here. The template shouldn't exist unless we're absolutely sure about the applicable laws (and can explain them better). The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 06:43, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright violation speedy deletion request from Di with justification: Prime Video is not the copyright holder for this film, and thus cannot release scenes of it under a usable license. Dhx1 (talk) 02:46, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment Original speedy deletion request from @Di (they-them): https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Waymond%27s_about_to_kick_some_serious_ass_-_Everything_Everywhere_All_At_Once_-_Prime_Video.webm&oldid=883523668

Evidence of section 6 of https://videodirect.amazon.com/home/agreement points to Amazon generally having agreements in place with film copyright owners for Amazon's use of "Promotional Materials" in any media (e.g. YouTube included). In the case of this deletion request for a clip from "Everything Everywhere All At Once", the copyright owner appears to remain as A24 Films per search of the copyright owner on copyright.gov. Per https://press.aboutamazon.com/2013/11/amazon-and-a24-announce-exclusive-content-agreement-making-prime-instant-video-the-only-premium-subscription-service-to-offer-films-from-a24 there is likely a non-standard/custom exclusive distribution agreement between A24 Films and Amazon, that appears more likely than not would allow Amazon to distribute promotional material via YouTube, seemingly with the Creative Commons license that Amazon has a pattern of using on YouTube.

In either outcome of this deletion request, Wikimedia Commons copyright help pages need adjusting to make clear when copyright owners or distributors should and should not be trusted in their use of Creative Commons licenses. When should copyright owners and distributors be second guessed? Is it necessary for Wikimedia Commons to obtain permissions from all musicians and script writers that have contributed copyrighted content to a film company to rule out the possibility of a film company incorrectly releasing a film as CC-BY without permission of all other copyright owners related to the film? Or should a film company be trusted/assumed to have obtained all these permissions correctly being using the CC-BY license? Dhx1 (talk) 03:24, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 DeleteAmazon wants people to spread the word, and promotional materials are expected to be used as part of an article about the video. All the best -- Chuck ^Talk 03:29, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but I'm not entirely sure why "Amazon wants people to spread promotional material" is a reason for deletion. This discussion ultimately comes down to whether or not Amazon has the rights to release the footage under Creative Commons, not whether they "want" the scene to be spread. Di (they-them) (talk) 03:45, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No freedom of panorama in Georgia A1Cafel (talk) 02:52, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, then I guess all other pictures featuring the St George Monument (Freedom Monument) in the category Freedom Square, Tbilisi should be listed for deletion, too. --Botev (talk) 07:09, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

per COM:TOYS

• File:Anime Expo 2013 - Gundam F91 (9225643695).jpg
• File:Anime Expo 2013 - Gundam model (9225643241).jpg
• File:Anime Expo 2013 - Gundam RX-78 (9225643879).jpg
• File:Anime Expo 2013 - Gundam RX-78 -Picture 2- (9225643541).jpg

メイド理世 (talk) 04:12, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

VRT ticket provides permission for photo only, but not for depicted work Krd 05:24, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Was mich interessieren würde: War der ursprüngliche, von mir gestellte Löschantrag mit gleicher Stoßrichtung und Argumentation nicht verständlich genug? Reagieren die Admins auf unenglisch gestellte Löschanträge nur widerwillig?--GerritR (talk) 06:28, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Geht so. Bevorzugt wird schon englisch, aber es gibt genügend Commons-Admins, die deutsch verstehen. Ich nehme an, der @Wdwdbot hat den letzten Antrag geschlossen, weil er dachte, das VRT-Ticket beträfe sowohl Fotografie als auch das Werk. Die Fotografie ist wohl unproblematisch und korrekt lizenziert, beim Werk bin ich nicht sicher. Könnte alt genug sein oder unter sowas wie {{PD-Coa-Germany}} fallen. PaterMcFly (talk) 05:52, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Info, @GerritR: nicht verständlich sondern ungeeignet. Zur Erklärung: Ein Löschantrag dient dazu, dass Du als Antragsteller möglichst konkrete Punkte vor bringst, welche eine Löschung begründen und untermauern. Eine Frage in Rahmen eines Löschantrages in den Raum zu stellen, wie oben von Dir, ist dafür im Allgemeinen ungeeignet. Im speziellen auch, weil die Antwort darauf hier gar nicht geklärt werden kann, da diese Datei ein Freigabe via VRT hat - möglicherweise hast Du diesen Umstand übersehen. Da nun nicht alle Admins VRT-Zugriff haben und die nicht-öffentlichen Tickets für die Freigabe nicht einsehen/kontrollieren können, erfolgte daher mein Verweis diese Frage im VRT-Board zu stellen. Mit der Sprache hat dieser Ablauf und auch meine Aktion nichts zu tun.--Wdwd (talk) 13:14, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Die VRT-Freigabe habe ich sehr wohl gesehen und auch gleich den Verdacht gehabt, dass sie fehl geht. Ich dachte, dass die Freigabe dann auch in der LD (mit) hinterfragt wird, anstatt den Ball erstmal wegzuspielen. GerritR (talk) 14:01, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

GerritR, Du kannst nicht davon ausgehen dass hier Löschanträge nur von vernünftigen Leuten gestellt werden und dass demzufolge immer alle Details betrachtet werden. Das geht zeitlich auch gar nicht. In sofern war die Reaktion auf den eigentlich richtigen Löschantrag genau die, die eingetreten ist. Hier hat niemand etwas falsch gemacht. --Krd 14:20, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Per COM:TOYS A1Cafel (talk) 06:31, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This file was initially tagged by Viriditas as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: https://collections.okeeffemuseum.org/object/1148/

I had actually enquired about the copyright status of this 1939 painting by American painter Georgia O'Keeffe at the COM:VPC, and there was the tentative conclusion that it might be in the public domain in the US (Commons:Village_pump/Copyright/Archive/2024/04#1934 painting by Georgia O'Keeffe). Are there further opinions? Rosenzweig τ 08:22, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I read your discussion. There’s no indication the painting was ever in the public domain. In your discussion, you said the paintings were sold in 1939 or thereafter. Only one painting from that series was sold in 1939, Cup of Ginger, and it immediately entered the collection of the Baltimore Museum of Art. This image of the painting in question was in the hands of Doris Bry, who at the time, represented O'Keeffe’s estate. The work was put up for sale in 1976-1977 for the first time. It’s preposterous to think that O'Keeffe let her copyright lapse, as she was fiercely defensive of her work and was obsessive about copyright. You said you looked though the Internet Archive files for evidence of copyright, but those are notoriously sparse. It’s insane to think O'Keeffe let her copyright lapse. I should note that O'Keeffe shows up a lot in the legal literature, so if these works were in the public domain, we would know. The O'Keeffe Foundation, notably issued a cease and desist letter in 1996 to Adobe, who were forced to destroy a photo CD with O'Keeffe’s images on it. The copyright literature is chock full of O'Keeffe defending her copyright, particularly in regards to images from the 1930s. Given what we know, it is unlikely that there is any other American artist who has so forcefully protected their work. To suggest that O'Keeffe let her copyright lapse doesn’t line up with what we know. Viriditas (talk) 11:42, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OK, that is another opinion. And it's good that we get it here, spelled out, instead of just a speedy deletion request with nothing more than a URL. If you're already aware that there was a discussion regarding the copyright status of the file, a regular deletion request is the way to go unless said discussion had a crystal clear outcome. Which was not the case here. And could you please dial back a bit on adjectives like "preposterous", "insane" etc.? Thank you. --Rosenzweig τ 16:26, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See Chapter 1900 (2021). Per 1905.1, the painting in question received "limited publication" in 1940 versus "general publication" when it was sold in the 1970s. "Section 101 of the Copyright Act states a work is published when copies or phonorecords of that work are distributed “to the public.” 17 U.S.C. § 101. Specifically, publication occurs when one or more copies or phonorecords are distributed to a member of the public who is not subject to any express or implied restrictions concerning the disclosure of the content of that work. If a work exists only in one copy – such as a painting embodied solely in a canvas – the work may be considered published if that copy is distributed to the public with the authorization of the copyright owner. No such copy was distributed until the 1970s. "A limited publication is the distribution of copies of a work to a definitely selected group with a limited purpose and without the right of diffusion, reproduction, distribution, or sale. A limited publication is not considered a distribution to the public and, therefore, is not publication." That describes the Georgia O'Keeffe: Exhibition of Oils and Pastels 1940 exhibition.[1] "...the work may be considered published if that copy is distributed to the public with the authorization of the copyright owner...[such as] Selling the original copy of a painting at an auction." That eventually occurred in 1976. This is also one of the many reasons O'Keeffe scholars have noted there is a dearth of critical literature on certain O'Keeffe paintings until after she died. If a particular painting was indeed "published", that facilitates critical commentary and attention, and leads to multiple works publishing image reproductions and essays about the work. In this case, the first major reproductions and essays about this work didn't occur until 1990, mostly because it wasn't "published" to the general public until 1976. Yes, several works from 1939 that were part of this series and appeared at the exhibition in 1940 did receive the status of "general publication", but that's because one of the works famously entered a major museum collection as a gift, and two other works were famously commissioned by a pineapple company for an ad campaign, and their PR department notoriously drummed up attention for those two works by publishing them in major American magazines in that same year. All three works received major coverage and had their images widely reproduced. That fulfills the criterion for general publication, whereas it is not met by White Bird of Paradise until the late 1970s. This is self-evident. For example, if we assume this painting was published to the general public in 1939-1940, we would expect to see some attention given to it, or at least reproductions made like we do the other three works from the same series. There is none until 1990. Viriditas (talk) 20:48, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The YouTube account this video was uploaded from is not operated by the videographer. Do we have any evidence that they were actually able to release this under a Creative Commons license? Launchballer (talk) 10:22, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

•  Delete As long as the videographer hasn't released this video under a suitable license, this will have to go. Yann, I'm not sure that this deletion request is showing up in the right places. Could you take a look and apply a fix if needed? Schwede66 05:01, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Shouldn't we ask the videographer before nominating? AuroraANovaUma ^-^ (talk) 21:11, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Ask the videographer about the license

AuroraANovaUma ^-^ (talk) 21:12, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

[[Category:]]

Original size version: File:Tea Kattle art in Taitung Kaneshiro Takeshi Tree 20141112.jpg Solomon203 (talk) 10:25, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You should use {{Merge}} instead of {{Delete}} for such cases. You may also consider reporting this: Commons:History merging and splitting.--125.230.65.217 09:56, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Half black 186.172.88.84 12:36, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

{{FoP-China}} doesn't cover text. 沈澄心✉ 12:59, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

per COM:TOYS メイド理世 (talk) 13:25, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

per https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/%D8%B3%D8%B1%D8%A2%D8%B3%D9%88%D9%86%D9%B1 Enhancing999 (talk) 14:01, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

no data source, could be just made up; note that 2 of these are in use but it's likely they will be removed soon given they lack a datasource and the refs near it are a directly embedded image

• File:Total Fertility rate in selected countries (1950-2023).jpg
• File:Total Fertility rate in India by religion (1947-2023).jpg
• File:Total fertility rate in selected countries.jpg

Prototyperspective (talk) 14:20, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

the Dune popcorn bucket is a copyrighted sculpture. This image focuses on it directly, so it's not de minimis. AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 14:22, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep I think that there's a pretty good argument to be made for it to be de minimis. The bucket only takes up a small part of the image, and it's being held by a person so it's being presented in the context of being a useful object, IE being used as a bucket. I think that this photo would fall under case 5 on the COM:DM page: Copyrighted work X is identifiable and an unavoidable part of the subject, and is essential to the subject (e.g. removing it would make the file useless) but the work is shown in insufficient detail and/or with insufficient clarity, so de minimis may apply. Di (they-them) (talk) 16:06, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

•  Delete per nom; based on the title and description, it's pretty clear the focus is the bucket, not the person holding it. If the person holding it is/should be the main focus, this should be cropped and renamed. Queen of Hearts (talk) 19:57, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Photo by Rubén Andón [2] taken in 1976 in Argentina. The source is the Facebook from photographer, and there is no information about its first publication. Thus, it is not clear it is in the Argentine public domain (20 years after publication). Notice that if it was published between 1976 and 1989, its US copyright was restored due to URAA. Later publications are covered by Berne Convention. Also, it is important to notice that in the source the image has a watermark with the copyright symbol and the name of the photographer. Günther Frager (talk) 15:06, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Logo likely to be above COM:TOO A1Cafel (talk) 15:36, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No free license seen where it was posted: https://www.reddit.com/r/vexillology/comments/cwl4ft/a_synthesis_of_various_secular_iran_flag_designs/ HeminKurdistan (talk) 16:11, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not a work by Mehr News Agency, photograph taken from @SaadoonMustafa on Twitter (per thenationalnews.com) HeminKurdistan (talk) 16:27, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hufnagel Pütz and Rafaelian were the architects of the building and all three are still alive, in Germany there is no Freedom of Panorama for interior views and Germany has also a standard of life + 70 years

• File:2019-08-09 Leipzig Museum der bildenden Künste 04.jpg
• File:2019-08-09 Leipzig Museum der bildenden Künste 46.jpg
• File:2019-08-09 Leipzig Museum der bildenden Künste 81.jpg
• File:Leipzig MdbK ŝtuparo.jpg
• File:Museum-der-bildenden-Kuenste-Leipzig-Bildermuseum-innen-11-2016.jpg

Paradise Chronicle (talk) 16:44, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have no problem with the deleting of my images. So we must wait or the museum give us free images. --sk (talk) 17:31, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mehr News Agency has stated on the gallery page that the photographs have been taken from foreign sources ("منابع خارجی"), hence these are not created by their staff. The credit of images on this gallery is either blank or 'Received'. One instance known to have been taken from social media: Commons:Deletion requests/File:2019 attack on the United States embassy in Iraq 04.jpg.

• File:2019 attack on the United States embassy in Iraq 02.jpg
• File:2019 attack on the United States embassy in Iraq 03.jpg
• File:2019 attack on the United States embassy in Iraq.jpg
• File:Attack on the United States embassy in Baghdad 15.jpg

HeminKurdistan (talk) 16:47, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is no FoP for interior views in Poland. The building was newly built by Bohdan Pniewski who died in 1965. Poland has a standard of life + 70 years

• File:26649145851 - Flickr - Magdalena Roeseler.jpg
• File:Grand Theatre, Warsaw interior July 7th 2010.jpg
• File:Teatr Wielki w Warszawie Foyer dolne.jpg
• File:Teatr Wielki w Warszawie Foyer.jpg
• File:Teatr Wielki w Warszawie hol główny.jpg
• File:Teatr Wielki w Warszawie Sala Moniuszki 2016.jpg
• File:Warsaw Grand Theatre 1.jpg

Paradise Chronicle (talk) 17:41, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Incorrect. Both main building and historic interiors are post-war reconstructions, i.e. they were not designed from scratch by the team of architects led by Bohdan Pniewski. Also, the southern wing was rebulit earlier, in late 1940s. Therefore, those interiors are not protected by Polish copyright law. Boston9 (talk) 11:11, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Are you sure? I am happy to believe you but can you also bring a source that confirms what you write? Here the history pf the theatre. In Wold War 2 it says it was destroyed completely with only the facade standing at the end of the war. Following the war it was renovated for 20 years to plans from Pniewski and it was inaugurated in 1965. The theatre company played on other stages during the renovation.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 16:50, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong license for Ukrainian army subunit established in 2023 (has to be clarified if this is in PD under any other conditions/license) Tatewaki (talk) 18:17, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

copyright violation https://www.arkfinance.ie/our-charity-for-2021/ Xocolatl (talk) 20:02, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ciao @Xocolatl, sono due foto differenti. -- Anubi1984 (talk) 17:08, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The buildings architect was Bernhard Hermkes who died in 1995 and in Germany there is no Freedom of Panorama for interior views and Germany has also a standard of life + 70 years

• File:Audimax der Universität Hamburg, Auditorium I (1).JPG
• File:Audimax der Universität Hamburg, Auditorium I (2).JPG
• File:Audimax der Universität Hamburg, Auditorium I (3).JPG
• File:Audimax der Universität Hamburg, Auditorium I (4).JPG
• File:Audimax der Universität Hamburg, Auditorium I (5).JPG
• File:Audimax der Universität Hamburg, Foyer (1).JPG
• File:Audimax der Universität Hamburg, Foyer (2).JPG
• File:Audimax der Universität Hamburg, Foyer (3).JPG
• File:Audimax der Universität Hamburg, Foyer (4).JPG
• File:Audimax der Universität Hamburg, Foyer (5).JPG
• File:Audimax der Universität Hamburg, Foyer (6).JPG

Paradise Chronicle (talk) 20:37, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I took these pictures with the permission of the Universität Hamburg, owner of this building. They are meant as an illustration of de:Auditorium Maximum (Universität Hamburg), an article I researched, wrote and submitted for the Schreibwettbewerb, the premier high quality writing contest of the German language Wikipedia. One of the jurors suggested pictures of the interior, and I complied. The article won the second prize that year. I then submitted the article to Exzellenz vote (FA), which the article passed. The question of Urheberrecht was discussed, and one of the jurors (Brodkey65) commented in the negative on these interior shots, meaning their framing and detail did not pass the originality test and they were thus permissible.

Now I realize that none of this matters in the slightest, not my research efforts, not my various visits to research libraries and one archive, nor discussions and reviews, nor photo shoots. Because hey: Let's nominate these pictures for deletion, because the estate of Bernhard Hermkes cares deeply about his work not getting any visibility. It took user Paradise Chronicle about 2 minutes to make these deletion requests. For shame. --Minderbinder (talk) 20:57, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Minderbinder, this is indeed a petty, all your efforts were and are admirable. I have had a similar discussion before, and then I suggested that the images just be uploaded directly to the German wikipedia. I am pretty sure that in your case this will be possible as well. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 13:41, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

•  Delete Per the nominator. Clearly COPYVIO and we don't keep copyrighted material simply because the uploader consulted other people or put work into getting the images. Although I'd suggest following Paradise Chronicle's advice and just uploading them to German Wikipedia. --Adamant1 (talk) 22:49, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

While there is licence text at the source (archived at https://web.archive.org/web/20161119090641/http://avproduction.am/ with the license text in Armenian beneath the copyright stamenent in the footer), it explicitly disallows derivative works. Own work claim contradicted by author statement in the description and really not believable. Felix QW (talk) 20:58, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Armenian copyright term is pma +70; there is no reason this image should have been made before 1954, when the subject would have been 46 years old. Felix QW (talk) 21:09, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The architect Fritz Hetzelt died in 1986, in Germany exists a standard of life + 70 years and there exists no FoP for interior views in Germany

• File:Wuppertal - Schwimmoper 17 ies.jpg
• File:Wuppertal - Schwimmoper 19 ies.jpg
• File:Wuppertal - Schwimmoper 20 ies.jpg
• File:Wuppertal - Schwimmoper 31 ies.jpg
• File:Wuppertal - Schwimmoper 32 ies.jpg
• File:Wuppertal - Schwimmoper 33 ies.jpg
• File:Wuppertal - Schwimmoper 35 ies.jpg
• File:Wuppertal - Schwimmoper 36 ies.jpg
• File:Wuppertal - Schwimmoper 37 ies.jpg
• File:Wuppertal - Schwimmoper 38 ies.jpg
• File:Wuppertal - Schwimmoper 39 ies.jpg
• File:Wuppertal - Schwimmoper 45 ies.jpg
• File:Wuppertal - Schwimmoper 46 ies.jpg

Paradise Chronicle (talk) 21:34, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

•  Keep. No substantively creative architectural elements. Mostly simple walls, stairs, bleachers, and swimming pools. These are only de minimis portions of a larger architectural work which do not pass the threshold of originality on their own. IronGargoyle (talk) 19:23, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Are you serious? The views are spectacular, it's a tremendous architect who can enable such views. Your keep votes sometimes really surprise me. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 03:06, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm completely serious. I could see a case maybe for File:Wuppertal - Schwimmoper 37 ies.jpg being deleted, as the grand windows might be a substantive enough portion of the architectural work. Your nominations are sometimes valid, but they contain no discernment. Just because a photograph is taken indoors does not mean that the photograph contains an architectural detail which is creative enough on its own for protection. It would be like taking a single Picasso brushstroke or a single word from Tolkien and saying those things are protected. It doesn't make any sense. IronGargoyle (talk) 03:23, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  File:Wuppertal - Schwimmoper 17 ies.jpg: very good architect work! --Atamari (talk) 09:56, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm going to assume you are being sarcastic about this simple red-tiled shower. IronGargoyle (talk) 00:37, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

•  Keep Absolutely crazy idea! If this request for deletion is approved, interior photos of public buildings may no longer be published from now on, as even in very old buildings the interior is almost always younger than 100 years and therefore the interior designer has not been dead for 70 years.How can you get the idea that every piece of interior design is a work of art? Oh yeah, the red of the tiles is just amazing, my dear.

Addendum: Only tiled in a round shape it is a work of art, of course not at a 90 degree angle, look here! And here, a unique stroke of genius. Who other than Hetzelt would have ever thought of designing stands in the form of steps? Im Fokus (talk) 20:07, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is serie of promotional photos in 2013 of "Samuel Celestino" - see, v. g., look at the identical clothes (the tie, in particular) and the white background in http://brunoalvesking.blogspot.com/2013/05/samuel-celestino-tarde-ampla-geral-e.html and please also note that this image does not contain the EXIF ​​data of the photograph André Koehne ^{TALK TO ME} 22:03, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1949 British poster. Possibly public domain in the UK (I cannot find an artist credit), but this was not public domain in the UK in 1996 so this was restored by URAA. Abzeronow (talk) 22:07, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep This feature film is only copyrighted in the US per COM:URAA, except for that poster. Because, it was first published outside the US (and not published in the US within 30 days). Unsyndicated Truth (talk) 22:20, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The film (which is one of my personal favorites) is still under copyright in the United Kingdom because the principal creators have not been dead for 70 years. But this is just discussing the poster, which as you say was not simultanously published in the US, and had its US copyright restored by URAA on January 1, 1996. Abzeronow (talk) 22:25, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe I should keep this file for now on. Unsyndicated Truth (talk) 10:38, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete The {{PD-1996}} tag is incorrect since the poster was published 47 years before the UK URAA restoration date‌. hinnk (talk) 00:22, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image found somewhere else on Google; amateur photographer taking the picture in the Mazhilis building itself is unlikely; free image is available anyway Malik Nursultan B (talk) 23:06, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• File:Arista logo.png
• File:Arista Records 1983-2011.svg
• File:ARISTA LOGO.svg
• File:Arista-Logo.svg

The old classic Arista Records logo has a unique shape forming an "A". Presumably, it's above the US's threshold of originality. Unsure why those files were exported to or created in Commons, but the logo should've been discussed in the first place. --George Ho (talk) 20:43, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The buildings architect Gerhard Weber died in 1986 and Germany knows a standard of life + 70 years and there is no FoP for interior views in Germany

• File:Hamburg Staatsoper Foyers 1.jpg
• File:Hamburg Staatsoper Foyers 4.jpg
• File:Hamburg Staatsoper Zuschauerraum 01.jpg
• File:Hamburg Staatsoper Zuschauerraum 02.jpg
• File:Hamburg Staatsoper Zuschauerraum 03.jpg
• File:Hamburg Staatsoper Zuschauerraum 04.jpg
• File:Bundesarchiv B 145 Bild-F004311-0005, Hamburg, Staatsoper, Zuschauerraum, Ränge.jpg
• File:Hamburg Staatsoper Zuschauerraum 05.jpg
• File:Hamburg Staatsoper Zuschauerraum 06.jpg
• File:Bundesarchiv B 145 Bild-F004311-0001, Hamburg, Staatsoper, Zuschauerraum.jpg

Paradise Chronicle (talk) 17:22, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, eigene Aufnahmen reiner Architektur sind in Deutschland meines Erachtens nach nicht urheberrechtsgeschützt. -- Kürschner (talk) 17:32, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Leider schon, schau mal den Absatz zur Architektur. Only external appearances. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 17:46, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would rather take the word of the Bundesarchiv over some anonymous user. If the Bundesarchiv donates a picture under the appropriate license, then that is good enough for Wikipedia. Further, pictures of interior architecture need to show such original elements of architecture, not just some spurious details. That is not the case in some of the pictures, in particular the Foyer. --Minderbinder (talk) 21:00, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]