User talk:Bruxton/June 2022 - December 2022

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Tagging photos for speedy deletion based solely on FoP issues

[edit]

Hi, User:Bruxton. Please don't do that anymore. Commons deletion policy guidelines do not permit speedy deletion on arguable questions of FoP, de minimis and the like. Moreover, you'll see some threads on previous deletion nominations of some of the photos you tagged for speedy deletion in which the files in question were kept because of a non-renewal of copyright on the statue. I appreciate your desire to shield Commons from potential copyright problems, but remember that Commons is a repository of images for the entire Wikimedia family of sites, many of which allow the local use of files based on fair use exceptions to FoP rules, and in case a photo here is nominated for deletion, other Wikis need time to make a decision about whether to upload such files for local use. And on a purely selfish basis, I would rather not have spent all this time challenging the speedy deletion tags and typing unnecessarily about these photos, but I did so on principle even in the case of numerous photos we're not using on English Wikivoyage, where I'm a bureaucrat/admin. Thanks. Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:51, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Ikan Kekek: , thanks for the message. I saw that the images are a violation. "This memorial statue was created by sculptor Felix de Weldon to commemorate the US soldiers who passed away during the second World War. The statue was inspired by the famous Joe Rosenthal photo of US soldiers raising the USA flag on Iwo Jima. As Mr. de Weldon became deceased in 2003, copyright still exists over his works." Seems like a clear copyvio and violation of FOP. Bruxton (talk) 21:54, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There's a question about the non-renewal of copyright, but my point is not that these photos are ineligible for deletion nomination but that they are ineligible for speedy deletion. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:58, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
To be clear, if the photo were copyrighted, it would be eligible for speedy deletion. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:59, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I do understand your point. I did not realize that there would be any ambiguity about these. FYI. There are quite a few more of the same Memorial. Some of them are images of the United States government I don’t know how we treat thise either. Bruxton (talk) 22:02, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's not just a question of whether there's ambiguity or not, but also the need to give other Wikis time to have internal discussions and decide whether to locally upload files as fair use. If you delete stuff before we have a chance to do anything, we get angry and start to discuss whether we can rely on Commons as a central repository of images. Before notifications became more reliable, we were getting Wikivoyage pagebanners and other important files deleted so often without our prior knowledge that we had a serious discussion of whether we needed to leave the Wikimedia family and reestablish our own local repository of photos. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:06, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Ikan Kekek: Thank you for telling me about the procedure. . I have ivoted in the deletions. Unfortunately there was a renewed patent on the sculpture in 2000. Bruxton (talk) 04:40, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Renewed copyright, I guess. Thanks for being cool about this. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:42, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Marine Corps Memorial

[edit]

You should be aware of this https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_in_Category:Marine_Corps_War_Memorial Famartin (talk) 03:06, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Famartin: Seems he may have either copyrighted it or renewed it in 1977 and the participants in that deletion review were not aware. Bruxton (talk) 03:18, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think from my research also:

Renewed in 1993:

Registration Number / Date: VAu000265428 / 1993-08-20 Title: Marines raising flag on IWO-JIMA. Description: Sculpture. Copyright Claimant: Felix DeWeldon, 1917- Date of Creation: 1993

And 2000: Document Number: V3456D053 Date of Recordation: 2000-08-11 Entire Copyright Document: V3456 D53 P1-3 Date of Execution: 23Apr98; date of cert.; 7Aug00 Title: Head of David & 6 other titles; sculptures / By Felix DeWeldon, artist. Notes: Agreement. Party 1: Charles Huller & Felix DeWeldon. Links: List of titles:

   001    Head of David.
   002    Discus thrower.
   003    Bust of Kennedy.
   004    Iwo Jima war memorial.
   005    Pieta.
   006    Brudus.
   007    Colossus of Rhodes.

Names: Huller, Charles DeWeldon, Felix

Bruxton (talk) 03:30, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Bedroom in the Atomitat underground home.png 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!

EEng (talk) 13:30, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
File:Ruth and Jay Swayze outside their underground home.png 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!

EEng (talk) 13:31, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
File:Backyard and garage of Atomitat.png 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!

EEng (talk) 13:38, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
File:Entry way to underground home Atmitat.png 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!

EEng (talk) 13:40, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
File:Underground patio in underground home.png 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!

EEng (talk) 13:50, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
File:LaVere Redfield on the telephone during his 1960-61 tax evasion trial.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!

EEng (talk) 13:51, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
File:Jay Swayze.png 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!

EEng (talk) 13:52, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
File:October 1963 Jay Swayze with shovel.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!

EEng (talk) 13:54, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]


File:Reverse 2020 Australia 1 oz Silver Kangaroo.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!

A1Cafel (talk) 01:04, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
File:1909 dictionary definition for Got the Morbs.png 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!

35.139.154.158 18:56, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]



The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.