User talk:Materialscientist/Archive 7

Kazakhstan FOP

Bot: Removing c:File:Gulag ALZHIR in Astana, Kazakhstan, Monument to the victims 01.jpg , deleted by Materialscientist (per Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Gulag ALZHIR in Astana, Kazakhstan, Monument to the victims 01.jpg).

there is totally no FOP for Kazakhtan. How about other panoramas in Category:Akmol Labour Camp for Wives of Traitors of the Motherland and overall, everywhere in Category:Kazakhstan? Altenmann (talk) 08:59, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Yes, there are many other files on Commons that violate FoP rules, not only for Kazakhstan. Admins are not allowed to delete them on sight, so feel free to nominate them for deletion. Materialscientist (talk) 11:39, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

File:Boolean alphabet.svg

File:Boolean alphabet.svg has been marked for speedy deletion. (Reason: unneeded redirect) Why not upload a picture of a plant, animal, or anything else which fits into our scope. You can contribute any media type you want, including but not limited to images, videos, music, and 3D models. Start uploading now! If you don't have anything to upload at the moment, why not take a look at our best images or best videos, sounds and 3D models. If you have any doubts/questions don't hesitate to visit our help desk.

User who nominated the file for deletion (Nominator) : Watchduck.

I'm a computer program; please don't ask me questions but ask the user who nominated your file(s) for deletion or at our Help Desk. //Deletion Notification Bot 2 (talk) 19:46, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Löschen von Helena Pieske und Elisa Schlott

Warum löschst du die Profilbilder? Falsche Behauptung dass diese Agentur Fotos sind. Bei Emilia Pieske hat es vernünftige Benutzer gegeben die die Löschung verhindert haben. Was ist dein Problem? Alfonsxp (talk) 19:43, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, I've double checked File:Helena Pieske Copyright Alf Pieske.jpg and undeleted it. I wasn't involved with deletion of other files, please ask the deleting administrator. Materialscientist (talk) 23:12, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

News paper clipping DR

Hi. At least File:1929 - Colonial Theater - 1 Dec MC - Allentown PA.jpg had a copyright on it and the license for the file isn't valid because of it. So can you delete the file? Adamant1 (talk) 01:28, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

The license is consistent with the claim ({{PD-US-not renewed}}). I'll cross-check the renewal (can't access the database right now). Materialscientist (talk) 01:35, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. I don't have an issue with keeping the file if the add wasn't renewed, but all RAN said is that the paper wasn't and I assume they would have different licenses. --Adamant1 (talk) 01:41, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

I've checked many dozens of US images for renewal in the past, and never saw renewals for newspaper adverts - only saw renewals for magazine covers and photos, other standalone studio photos, and some still images from movies. Materialscientist (talk) 01:45, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

100 Faces of the Tenerife Auditorium

Which PD works are the paintings copies of exactly? Because I looked for at least a few of them and couldn't find any. Nor do anyone in the DR present any evidence that they are copies of prior works that are in the public domain. Although I did find a couple of photographs that look similar, but they were by no means copies of the paintings on the rocks. Adamant1 (talk) 01:34, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

I took random images from the series, googled for the depicted person, and found a very similar (more detailed) original, like [1] for Joaquín Sabina, etc. Although FoP rues are unclear for Spain, I can't imagine a copyright case for such works. Materialscientist (talk) 01:41, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

I don't know which rock has a painting for Joaquín Sabina, but I don't really see how they could be similar enough for it to be a copy of the photograph since it's a painting on a rock. Also even if the rules are generally unclear in Spain, they are at least that the work has be "in or on a public throughfare. From what I could tell from the photographs the rocks are part of a rock outcropping that goes into the ocean, which is hardly a public throughfare. Otherwise where would the through traffic be going to? The outcropping literally ends half way in the ocean. Like look at this photograph. Are you seriously going to tell me that's a public throughfare? --Adamant1 (talk) 01:47, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

It doesn't matter how difficult it is to climb through (by my measures it is very easy :-), what matters is that the pier is freely accessible to the public (which has naturally used this opportunity and painted those images :-). Materialscientist (talk) 01:51, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Maybe it's an American thing, but I wouldn't call that a pier. Piers are usually man made raised platforms supported on pillars or girders. Not every random little piece of land that happens to go into the ocean that someone put some rocks on. Same goes for the word "throughfare" BTW, which the law specifically cites as a criteria. For something to be a throughfare it has to form a route between two places. Not just be a dead end piece piece of dirt next to a body of water. --Adamant1 (talk) 01:56, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Yes, it is rather a wave breaker than a pier. Note that the original law said "parques, calles, plazas u otras vías públicas" [2], which pretty much covers such places. Note that they said "calles u vías", that is, by "vías" they mean "passes, tracks, etc." and not "streets". There is no "throughfare" in the law, it is just a poor translation by some wikimedian. Materialscientist (talk) 02:16, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

That's fair. All I have to go on is the guideline. Maybe it would qualify as a track though. Although probably not a pass. But the wording in the guideline should probably be clarified to avoid similar miss-understandings in the future regardless. But thanks for at least looking into it and clarifying things in the meantime. --Adamant1 (talk) 02:22, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

I've changed that bit in COM:Spain. This is just one more example of poor phrasing in our copyright templates, which disagrees with the original law. We all make mistakes, and I noticed that many templates were written by one editor and then transcluded into thousands of pages. I would question any such template. Materialscientist (talk) 02:33, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

OK. Thanks. I'll try and be more cautious about it in the future. A lot of the guidelines could definitely use some updating and clarification. --Adamant1 (talk) 02:40, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

File:Zinaida Ermoleva 2023 postcard of Russia cr2.jpg

File:Zinaida Ermoleva 2023 postcard of Russia cr2.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

— Redboston 06:32, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Jokanaknews

Hi - I see you deleted all the files I nominated in Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by User:Jokanaknews (thank you), and now I realised that apparently, I did not list them all. There were a few left in Category:Jokanak, and I had a look at those and added them to the bottom of the (now closed) deletion request. I hope that's ok - I just thought it would be better to keep the whole lot together in case there are further developments. Kind regards, -- Deadstar (msg) 08:49, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Deleted those too. Materialscientist (talk) 10:19, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Thank you. -- Deadstar (msg) 14:12, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Your Robot "CommonsDelinker"

I am very angry, furious, @Materialscientist: of your suppression of a picture on my user page ([3]), without sufficient explanation (this oldid : [4] : « Retrait du lien Andean_culture_history_(1960)_(20804381632).jpg, supprimé sur Commons par Materialscientist ; motif : per [[:c:Commons:Deletion requests/Fi annuler »).

My defense in french, please (I'm french, so I'm rebel...) :
♣- Instruments anciens des Andes en os, roseau et terre cuite, photo d'un livre de 1960, publié à New-York par l’American Museum of Natural History. Tentative de restauration : cette image a été sauvagement censurée par le robot CommonsDelinker, image à laquelle je tiens beaucoup. Je n'aime pas que des robots fassent du suppressionnisme sur MA page, même pilotés par un administrateur qui ne daigne pas s'expliquer clairement : je ne sais pas ce que signifie le "motif : per" (? novlangue de bois) invoqué. Ceci est un manque d'égard et de sens des relations humaines inadmissible. Je vais tâcher de réimporter cette image. Pour ce qui est des droits de diffusion : il s'agit d'un livre de 63 ans (quel robot me rendra cette image quand les 70 ans de carence avant la promotion au domaine public seront échus ?), publié par une institution de service public (nonobstant le mercantilisme étasunien) -> j'aimerais bien savoir qui s'est permis de discuter le droit de diffusion de ce document dans une encyclopédie coopérative bénévole et gratuite, ouverte à tous : certainement un “ayant-droit” singulièrement malotru, car on ne voit pas de quel intérêt financier cette diffusion pourrait le priver ; il devrait au contraire être honoré d'être cité dans une encyclopédie généraliste, qui lui fait une publicité gratuite. De plus cette censure jette à la poubelle le "droit de citation" brève et mesurée. Je trouve les conseillers juridiques de Wikimedia particulièrement mollassons sur ce coup-là. Ou quand le droit s'oppose à la diffusion des connaissances, il devient paradoxalement, et à fronts renversés, anti-humaniste...
Comme quoi, il faut toujours faire une sauvegarde personnelle de toutes les pages de Wikipédia auxquelles on tient, car il existe sur Wikipédia des informations qui deviennent irrémédiablement perdues comme celles qui franchissent l'horizon d'un trou noir et malgré son “évaporation”... Et Steve Hawking est mort... It's a scandal!--Laurent Glaviano (talk) 14:53, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Question on DR

Hi Materialscientist, recently you closed this DR as keep, but without providing a reason. May I know why you decide to keep this image? Per the title, it was created in 2012 by Chris Stain (born in 1972, still alive) and Billy Mode (still alive), so there is no way that the mural is in PD, regards. A1Cafel (talk) 03:49, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, it was simply a mislick. I meant to close that DR as delete per nom, and fixed that now. Materialscientist (talk) 03:52, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

That's alright, everyone make mistiakes. Thanks for fixing it. Have a good day. --A1Cafel (talk) 03:53, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Σιγά τους κεραυνούς

Apparently, you haven't deleted the image File:Σιγά τους Κεραυνούς 1946.jpg, which is part of the Commons:Deletion requests/File:Σιγά τους Κεραυνούς 1946.jpg tht was closed as delete. C messier (talk) 17:21, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

This happens, due to a glitch in Commons scripts, thanks for checking. Deleted now. Materialscientist (talk) 21:17, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Why are screenshots of free software deleted?

Example: https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&logid=346470214

Commons:Screenshots WikiBayer (talk) 17:38, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

"Free to use" does not mean "free to distribute for commercial purposes" (or, simply put, "free to sell"), which is what we need for hosting an image on Commons. Materialscientist (talk) 21:41, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

File:Luis Walter Alvarez 1961.jpg

File:Luis Walter Alvarez 1961.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Adam Cuerden (talk) 09:03, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

File:LWA Picture Final.jpg

File:LWA Picture Final.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Adam Cuerden (talk) 09:31, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

File:Temur_11.jpg

Hi! Please delete this photo. The author is engaged in global spamming in several language sections, also engaged in PR of himself Alibek Attamonov (talk) 01:42, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

Franz Ritter von Des Loges statue in Suceava

Hi, User:Materialscientist. I'm familiar with the FoP rules in Romania that you gave as the deletion reason for Commons:Deletion requests/File:Franz Ritter von Des Loges statue in Suceava.jpg, but when was the statue in question created and when did the sculptor die? Since I can't see the picture anymore, was it the 1914 tomb, the 1931 funerary monument or the 2008 bas relief that was at issue? See https://ro.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franz_Des_Loges. Thanks.

All the best,

Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:20, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

The tomb and bas relief were either not fully visible, or they were hardly copyrightable. The main issue was the statue. It might be in PD in Romania (installed in 1931, I don't know the author), but not in the US, per COM:URAA. That aside, we had an author request, and the photo was taken against the bright sky, and thus the quality was relatively low. Materialscientist (talk) 22:00, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

Understood. Thanks for explaining. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:50, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

File:Estatua Marcelo Gallardo.jpg

Delete. File:Estatua Marcelo Gallardo.jpg. Imagen indebida. Autor falso original — Preceding unsigned comment added by Germa vitorrin (talk • contribs) 05:40, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

File:Estatua Marcelo Gallardo.jpg. Imagen indebida. Autor falso original

File:Estatua Marcelo Gallardo.jpg. Imagen indebida. Autor falso original Germa vitorrin (talk) 05:40, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

Closure of Commons:Deletion requests/File:Igor Gouzenko 1946.jpg

Hi Materialscientist. Could you please flesh out your closure rationale a bit. I'm not a copyright expert, but my understanding is that even if the photograph was produced and printed in 1946, that doesn't mean it was published under the Canadian Copyright Law, which defines publication as "making copies of a work available to the public". § 2.2(1)(a)(i). Best, Voorts (talk) 15:23, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

We have no evidence of Crown copyright. The bottom part of {{PD-Canada}} says nothing about "making copies of a work available to the public". Even if it did, the fact of printing out the photo, which is evident from its source url (there are two versions of the same photograph), suggests that it was made available to some people. Materialscientist (talk) 21:12, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

The evidence of Crown copyright is from the source URL, which claims Crown copyright under "Ordering and viewing options" at the bottom of the page. As for the language "making copies of a work available to the public", {{PD-Canada}} says "it was subject to Crown copyright and was first published more than 50 years ago" (emphasis added). Under Canadian Copyright Law, publication is defined as "making copies of a work available to the public." I"m not sure that printing a photograph and sharing it with members of a committee in an internal investigation counts as being "available to the public". Voorts (talk) 21:23, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Per Commons:Publication and multiple deletion debates, distribution of copies of a photograph qualified as publication on Commons. The number of people receiving the copies has never been an issue. Materialscientist (talk) 22:26, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Got it. Thank you. Voorts (talk) 22:43, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Hi @Materialscientist. One more question: what would an appropriate US PD tag be? Thanks, Voorts (talk) 20:51, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Hi @Materialscientist, I just wanted to follow up on this. Best, Voorts (talk) 00:06, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, I've missed your message, and fixed the templates after your reminder. As you correctly pointed out {{PD-Canada-Crown}} applies to this case. Hence we don't need a US PD tag (which was indeed required for PD-Canada). Materialscientist (talk) 03:47, 18 November 2023 (UTC)