Commons:Deletion requests/2025/10/03

October 3

Files in Category:Blue plaques in Johannesburg

All of these Blue Plaques have a literary copyright. These images infringe on the copyrights and cannot be kept on Commons. I have not listed the ten images in the category that are far enough away or are obscured so the text is not legible.

.     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:04, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

Thanks @Jameslwoodward Yes, some of these files were uploaded by Bobbyshabangu from the Wikimedia foundation. Derek J Moore (talk) 05:13, 5 October 2025 (UTC)
I disagree, Blue Plaques do not have copyright. Ossewa (talk) 14:48, 6 October 2025 (UTC)
Surely these plaques are informational, and do not have copyright. Wizzy (talk) 08:05, 10 October 2025 (UTC)
  • I disagree with this deletion request. You mention they have "literary copyright” held by whom? These were uploaded mostly by a project in South Africa conducted with Wikimedia South Africa and led by @Bobbyshabangu among others called Joburgpedia, I am certain that copyright was checked prior to these images being uploaded. For example, in this image File:JoburgPediA - Rahima Moosa House.png you can see the Joburgpedia plaque next to the blue plaque. I do think this is misguided request.Islahaddow (talk) 13:05, 10 October 2025 (UTC)
Note: Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Blue plaques in Cape Town ahas the same rationale. Are there any others? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:17, 10 October 2025 (UTC)
  • The request (like the similar one for Cape Town) is misguided. If any copyright contravention is alleged the onus is on the alleger to show that such copyright exists. By the way, even copyright-protected works displayed in public are now subject to freedom of panorama - a type of fair use.Michaelgraaf (talk) 14:53, 10 October 2025 (UTC)
  •  Delete The US standard for copyrightability is exemplified in this copyright ruling, wherein a 27 word joke is given copyright registration after the Copyright Office rejected it twice. None of these images show text anywhere near as minimal as that, and while informative works may have a slightly weaker copyright, I don't think these would have trouble getting copyright or defending that copyright even against a work that rephrased them.
The US standard doesn't set the South African standard, but is there any evidence about the South African standard? These are a couple paragraphs; I'd be surprised if any country had a standard of copyrightability that low. Also, COM:L says we have to worry about copyrightability in the US, and I think COM:PRP says in lack of evidence, we should assume that South Africa's standards here are much like the rest of the worlds.--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:39, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

Should it transpire that the maximalists here indeed represent the prevailing standard on Commons, that will be an indication that Commons needs to take steps to avoid a "race to the bottom" scenario where in order to satisfy the strictest country standards, the entire world has to censor its digital commons. Partial geoblocking might be the solution, where if an image is requested from an IP address in a country where the image is deemed transgressive, a pixellated patch is applied to the area in question, accompanied by a notification. Michaelgraaf (talk) 07:47, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

As no one has provided any evidence about the standards of copyright in South Africa, whining about "strictest country standards" and suggesting geoblocking is absurd. What does South African law and case law and any agency regulations say about the copyright copyrightability of short text?--Prosfilaes (talk) 18:07, 11 October 2025 (UTC)
No I've refrained from getting involved here because I have a COI and I think the basis for this deletion is on the edge of irrational and against the projects interests. Now the COI is that I wrote some and in some cases all of the text on these plaques. Some were designed and manufactured in the UK. Which precisely? I'm not sure. Did I take notes.... no! I donated them to an openly licensed resource never realising that they might have literary merit! Does my Nobel prize for literature await?) There might be legal issues I suppose but who would have thought that after being seen thousands of times by hundreds of users that fourteen years later someone thinks that there is a serious copyright issue. AND that it so obvious that we should delete every pic that is a bit similar. I notice that that these are all in South Africa, but if this rational is upheld then it can be roled out to do similar undeserved damage to other countries as well. The original proposal here was based on Freedom of Panorama by Dianaa. Jim was the closing admin and although the FOP argument was not evenly strongly held by the proposer - the file was deleted. (based on a new rationale) That has now morphed into a rationale based on the literary merit of blue plaques. Now it could be that there is a very slim legal point here that might be used to damage our project. If there is then I cannot see why project supporters should search it out. Fourteen years? Confused authorship? (its a blue plaque!) Informative? (its a blue plaque!) Literary? (its a blue plaque!) why would we want to find a precedent that damages several wiki projects in multiple languages? Can I thank those who have found some common sense here. This a proposed race to the bottom, and I'm not interested. Victuallers (talk) 16:43, 14 October 2025 (UTC)
The mystery is resolved. South African law has indeed been amended to extend FOP to the plaques and similar, but the president has withheld his signature, so the amendment is not yet in effect. Apparently there is a tag that can be attached to the plaques to facilitate de-deletion when the law comes into effect so please do so before deletion. Michaelgraaf (talk) 12:48, 15 October 2025 (UTC)
Seems as if common sense is anticipated. We could have done this more easily, and a lot more productively, if we too had common sense and resisted the urge to damage our project. There is/was no benefit here. Victuallers (talk) 08:21, 16 October 2025 (UTC)
Delete per COM:FOP South Africa if I copied these verbatim into Wikipedia as text it'd be removed as a copyright violation, I see no reason why it being an image changes that. File:Archbishop Desmond Tutu outside Tuto House, Soweto.jpg can be kept with the plaque cropped out. Traumnovelle (talk) 20:19, 25 March 2026 (UTC)
Kindly note the request that before deletion, the images are tagged to enable de-deletion when the law comes into effect. Michaelgraaf (talk) 07:50, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

The text in File:Meadowland HS-1.jpg, for example, is unreadable, and thus there is no copyright violation (I haven't checked all the other flies nominated; there may be others to which this applies). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:14, 27 March 2026 (UTC)

It is definitely readable: I read it word for word. Traumnovelle (talk) 09:38, 1 April 2026 (UTC)
Agreed.--Prosfilaes (talk) 01:02, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

Files in Category:Blue plaques in Cape Town

All of these Blue Plaques have a literary copyright. These images infringe on the copyrights and cannot be kept on Commons. I have not listed the one image in the category that is obscured so the text is not legible.

.     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:12, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

  • Keep some if not all. The amount of text, in those I took and others (example: "Sir Herbert Baker's last building in South Africa"), is too small to be copyrightable. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:25, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

Hmm - I agree about the first, sorry. The rest have a copyright in the USA and probably in SA. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:30, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

No, the same applies to File:2018-07-21 - Thomas Christoffel Muller plaque Cape Town - Andy Mabbett - 01.jpg, and probably File:J N von Dessin Plaque.jpg and File:Good Hope Seminary High School Blue plaques.jpg (the latter of which also seems to comprise mostly an 1873 mission statement). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:11, 6 October 2025 (UTC)
In the US, a single sentence can have a copyright. Circular 1, Copyright Basics explicitly excludes "short phrases", but not sentences. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:02, 9 October 2025 (UTC)
Jesus wept. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:23, 10 October 2025 (UTC)
I point here to the copyright ruling I mentioned in the other DR. I don't know about those two, but I'm inclined to give them a pass because they are short enough that you could argue they aren't copyrightable.--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:54, 10 October 2025 (UTC)
Note: Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Blue plaques in Johannesburg has the same rationale. Are there any others? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:18, 10 October 2025 (UTC)
Hello @Jameslwoodward I find it quite astonishing that you are comfortable with erasing South African history. Especially when I have repeatedly assured you that these do not infringe on copyright (good faith) and Wikipedia's mission is open up free knowledge (and you are contradicting that directly). Many of the plaques also pertain to education or resistance to apartheid. The bigger question that we should be addressing is data sovereignty. Just for your interest, the process you are enabling could be called state capture, maybe en:Enclosure We went through this a few years ago. It was brutal. Derek J Moore (talk) 17:27, 9 October 2025 (UTC)
I see that you are a relatively new and inexperienced editor. Perhaps you haven't read Commons:Project scope, which sets forth what we aim to do and the limits on it. Commons exists to provide well curated educational media that is free for any use. There are millions of images that it would be good to have, but that are not free for use, including those in this DR. I completely recognize that it is very likely that those who wrote these texts would be willing to give a free license for their general use, but until they do, they cannot be kept on Commons. If you want them kept, it is up to you to get the writers to send free licenses to VRT. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:02, 9 October 2025 (UTC)
Dear Jim. (@Jameslwoodward Thank for the reply. I am aware of the project scope for commons and believe that blue plaques fall within that scope. One of the organizations that arranges and manages blue plaques (Johannesburg Heritage Foundation) have completed the form. I visited (Dinna Steel a few days ago and she filled in the template. We only mentioned three files, but the same applies to all.
Please find it below.
Regards07:49, 10 October 2025 (UTC)~
I hereby affirm that I represent Johannesburg Heritage Foundation, the creator and/or sole owner of the exclusive copyright of both the work depicted and the following media:
I agree to publish the above-mentioned work under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International.
I acknowledge that by doing so I grant anyone the right to use the work, even in a commercial product or otherwise, and to modify it according to their needs, provided that they abide by the terms of the license and any other applicable laws.
I am aware that this agreement is not limited to Wikipedia or related sites.
I am aware that the copyright holder always retains ownership of the copyright as well as the right to be attributed in accordance with the license chosen. Modifications others make to the work will not be claimed to have been made by the copyright holder.
I acknowledge that I cannot withdraw this agreement, and that the content may or may not be kept permanently on a Wikimedia project.
Diana Steele
Research & Archive Manager of Johannesburg Heritage Foundation
2025-10-07
PS @Oesjaar, who is involved in AF Wikimedia and @Bobbyshabangu who heads up WMZA have also uploaded blue plaques and are very aware of what is permitted on commons. Derek J Moore (talk) 07:49, 10 October 2025 (UTC)
Derek J Moore, please take note that the Afrikaans Wikipedia and WikimediaZA paths have split. Regards. Oesjaar (talk) 08:32, 10 October 2025 (UTC)
Thanks. Are you willing to chat about it. I am doing research on Wikipedia and am looking for different people's perspectives Derek J Moore (talk) 08:43, 10 October 2025 (UTC)
I fully agree that the plaques are very much within the scope of Commons. The issue here is not scope, but copyright. We have the same problem in the USA -- many historical plaques that we would like to host have copyrighted text and cannot be kept on Commons.
If the Foundation sends the message above to VRT together with evidence that it has written copyright assignments from each of the writers, the problem will be solved.
I am very willing to chat about this or any issue that might concern you, either here on the subject or on my talk page on other subjects. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:04, 10 October 2025 (UTC)
The mystery is resolved. South African law has indeed been amended to extend FOP to the plaques and similar, but the president has withheld his signature, so the amendment is not yet in effect. Apparently there is a tag that can be attached to the plaques to facilitate de-deletion when the law comes into effect so please do so before deletion. Michaelgraaf (talk) 12:55, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

Files in Category:Blue plaques in Simon's Town

All of these Blue Plaques have a literary copyright. These images infringe on the copyrights and cannot be kept on Commons. I have not listed the one image in the category that is far enough away so the text is not legible.

.     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:16, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

We might need to do some digging or waiting as there may be a FoP amendment in South Africa per this comment. Nakonana (talk) 11:11, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

File:Geological Society of South Africa Blue Plaque W11.JPG

This Blue Plaque has a literary copyright. The image infringes on the copyright and cannot be kept on Commons. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:18, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

I disagree, Blue Plaques don't have copyright. Ossewa (talk) 14:46, 6 October 2025 (UTC)
Ossewa, of course they have a copyright. With a very few exceptions, none of which apply here, all created works have a copyright until it expires after at the very least 70 years. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:41, 10 November 2025 (UTC)
Hi Jim, when I search Commons for "Blue Plaques" I find 17,808 results here: https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?search=Blue+Plaques&title=Special%3AMediaSearch&type=image Ossewa (talk) 19:17, 18 November 2025 (UTC)
We might need to do some digging or waiting as there may be a FoP amendment in South Africa per this comment. Nakonana (talk) 11:13, 8 November 2025 (UTC)