Commons:Deletion requests/2024/08/09

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
8 August 2024
10 August 2024
Deletion requests on 9 August 2024

August 9

[edit]

Films by Yasujirō Ozu

[edit]

These are films directed by Yasujirō Ozu (1903–1963), released between 1932 and 1949. They are tagged with {{PD-Japan-film}}, which correctly states that their copyright in Japan expired 50 years after publication.

However, they would remain under copyright in the United States. As mentioned in the license tag and COM:JAPAN, a separate law kept films under copyright in Japan for 38 years after the director's death. This means that on the URAA restoration date‌ (1996), all of these films were still under copyright in Japan, and so their U.S. copyright would remain in effect for 95 years after publication. --hinnk (talk) 00:46, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep They may have been published in USA at the time, and URAA can't be the sole reason for deletion. Yann (talk) 13:03, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Further why did you only nominate my films, and not all the related pictures? Yann (talk) 13:05, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I nominated all the videos in the category but didn't touch the images. There are a lot of images in Category:Films by Yasujiro Ozu, and I think {{PD-Japan-oldphoto}} may apply to some of them—if some images are actually promotional stills published separately, or if the cinematographer/photographer's lifetime instead of the director's would be used to the determine the expiration. I'm not as familiar with how to evaluate that for photographs, so I wouldn't want to include dozens of files that might need to be evaluated differently.
Regarding U.S. publication, Ozu's films were famously unreleased outside Japan until the late 1950s, with U.S. releases of his earlier work coming decades after their original publication (Mindy Aloff did a nice piece about this in The New York Times).
Maybe I'm misinterpreting {{Not-PD-US-URAA}}, but its page indicates that URAA-affected images uploaded after 2012 "should be treated as other violations of the Commons:Licensing policy are." Is there something in there I'm not understanding correctly? hinnk (talk) 21:02, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Delete the following files:
Note that the actual policy is «A mere allegation that the URAA applies to a file cannot be the sole reason for deletion». Records in the US Copyright Office are not allegations. Günther Frager (talk) 02:20, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I deleted these files. Yann (talk) 08:55, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]


File:GO Train at Bradford Station (34191355393).jpg

[edit]

Similar to UK, there is no FoP for "graphic works" in Canada A1Cafel (talk) 04:51, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]


It's likely covered under "de minimis", as you can hardly see the pictures on the billboard, and this can be solved by cropping out the items in question. Oaktree b (talk) 11:50, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please crop or blur. --Krd 15:45, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ukraine team during the Opening Ceremony.png

[edit]

Original source is "GETTY IMAGES". Okras (talk) 06:34, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]


File:Bandera de Soná.jpg

[edit]

Wrongly tagged as {{PD-US}}. The source doesn't indicate any license and may be copyrighted. Taichi (talk) 06:35, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Nidarshana Gowani.jpg

[edit]

The person depicted in the photograph is the author and uploader. So we need permission from the original photographer to host the image. Adamant1 (talk) 06:48, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Cichorium intybus var. foliosum, Witloof, Geotrichum candidum met en donkere laag, praktijkpuntlandbouw.be.jpg

[edit]

This file was initially tagged by 0x0a as no permission (No permission since) Gnom (talk) 09:11, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

At least try giving a reason when you challenge it. 0x0a (talk) 18:55, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for that, and thank you for reminding me, @0x0a. I understand that the license statement in the source reads, "Reproduction and/or copying of data is permitted provided the source is explicitly stated.", which I would translate to "attribution only" in our terms. Gnom (talk) 16:47, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
According to Commons:Licensing, all copyrighted material on Commons must be licensed under a free license that allows anyone to use the material for any purpose. In particular, the license must meet the following conditions:
  1. Republication and distribution must be allowed.
  2. Publication of derivative work must be allowed.
  3. Commercial use of the work must be allowed.
The statement only meets the first condition, which is not sufficient for Commons. 0x0a (talk) 00:39, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@0x0a: You surely agree that the third condition is also met, because the license statement does not prohibit it, right? It is only the second requirement that we would need to look into. Gnom (talk) 07:53, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:2016 DNC Primary Map.png

[edit]

Found this looking into Category:Files that need updating. Not sure how useful that is and if it will ever be updated. We do have File:2016 Democratic Party presidential primaries results by state.svg. It is (or was) in use in Wikinews. Enhancing999 (talk) 11:13, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It had one use on Arabic Wikinews to illustrate a story about the start of the 2016 primaries, but it didn't make sense there either since the story had results for the Iowa Caucuses that weren't reflected in the blank map. I replaced it on Arabic Wikinews with the suggested file and support  Delete. —Tcr25 (talk) 16:43, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Дисна, Миорский район, Витебская область, Беларусь 49.jpg

[edit]

The mural on the depicted house is clearly above COM:TOO. Regrettably, Belarus has no freedom-of-panorama exception. So, a permission by the painter is required or the image needs to be deleted. -- Túrelio (talk) 13:57, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Author set license at https://www.instagram.com/p/CV0K6syoWSz Vitaly Zdanevich (talk) 23:28, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. That seems to be valid. However, I would prefer if a ru native speaker checks the permission text. --Túrelio (talk) 06:42, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Дричин, Осиповичский район, Могилёвская область, Беларусь 04.jpg

[edit]

The depicted statue is likely too recent to be our of copyright of the sculptor. Regrettably, Belarus has no freedom-of-panorama exception. So, a permission by the sculptor is required or the image needs to be deleted. -- Túrelio (talk) 13:58, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:30-07-2024 Vitral da Artista Marianne Peretti na Capelinha do Palácio do Jaburu (53892273043).jpg

[edit]

Depicted artwork is still in copyright (artist died in 2022). Some doubt whether at this indoor-location, it is covered by Brazil's freedom-of-panorama exception. -- Túrelio (talk) 14:08, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Túrelio Being indoor or outdoor is irrelevant for the Brazilian FOP, as documented by related court sentences, so  Keep if that's the reasoning for the deletion. There could be doubts because the protected artwork is the main (only?) subject of the photo, but 1) I understand there is no consensus in Brazilian jurisprudence that this is a problem, and 2) if you go by that you'll be opening an huge can of worms as, for instance, this one is even worst (with the aggravating factor that the colours seem to have been artificially changed to look blue instead of violet, as you can see by comparing with basically all other photos of the interior of the same church), and it's one of the worldwide winners of Wiki Love Monuments, 2020 edition. There are uncountable others in the same situation, which would be deleted if a more conservative approach to the Brazilian FOP is taken. Pinging @Rkieferbaum and @Joalpe as possible interested parties on the subject. Darwin Ahoy! 19:25, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Files found with Special:Search/www.sanu.ac.rs

[edit]

Files bearing on VRT ticket # 2009072410055859, nominated per comment of fellow Commoner (and current VRT agent) Lvova: [5] (Google translation: According to current policy, the ticket does not contain the required declarations – it literally says The material, data, photos and information found on the SANU website (www.sanu.ac.rs) are available to everyone and are not subject to any restrictions. You are free to use them in a way that will not endanger the reputation of SANU, citizens of Serbia and the state of Serbia. We also ask you to publish the downloaded material in its entirety in order to avoid misinterpretation and putting the facts in a different context (that means, at least, there is no permission for derivative works). In 2009, it seems, this was still accepted, and the correspondence was initiated by a VRT agent, who (I did not look at the reason) did not close it, later ceased to be an agent and the ticket was closed as not requiring a response, sorting out what was assigned to it; that is, formally the ticket was used, and this is not a violation of the uploader, but the ticket does not have the status "closed successfully". In general, a nomination for deletion (of all materials under this ticket) is needed with a description of the situation and the opinion of the community.) I will add that SANU's response, as it turns out, is posted here: sr:Википедија:Дозволе за објављивање/САНУ.

Quick1984 (talk) 14:08, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In the reply, Масликовић says the images "are not subject to any restrictions" (ne podlezu nikakvim ogranicenjima). The phrasing "we also ask" (Takodje vas molimo) reads to me as a request or at the strongest a noncopyright restriction, so it's not the same as releasing things only on a no-derivative works basis. (Not a native speaker/reader and working with translation here, so I could well be missing nuances.) —Tcr25 (talk) 16:52, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think that I understood everything correctly and still on my point: by current standarts we need to hear clearly the set of statements that is not represented in this ticket. If there are no words 'we allow derivative works' - there is no permission for derivative works. But of course this discussion is needed to hear opinions. Анастасия Львоваru/en 17:27, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Quite a lot of those can be probably under {{PD-Serbia}}... We need a bit of time to sort it out. I would like to remove RfD from those we figure out that they are in PD. Ђидо (talk) 00:32, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sysops are here to remove deletion templates from files. Quick1984 (talk) 07:27, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

When it comes to translation Takodje vas molimo ≈ But we also ask you please --Milićević (talk) 19:32, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And that's not a noncopyright restriction, not at all. All in all, please do not be hasty when it comes to deleting these images. — Sadko (words are wind) 22:21, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me, both from the text of this “permission” and from the variety of these images, that owners of this website do not understand the principles of copyright and are not the proper copyright holders of any of the images posted there. Most of all, this looks like license laundering. --Quick1984 (talk) 01:40, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:FortunatovFilip.jpg  Keep PD-1996 for anonymous Serbia image. --RAN (talk) 03:30, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, this image has nothing to do with Serbia. Secondly, see above. Quick1984 (talk) 03:41, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:OMV car wash.jpg

[edit]

I uploaded it by mistake Đuro Jiří (talk) 15:39, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:HFCA 1607 NPS Employees 0028.jpg (f7860ff172844f3aa2ffcc07a10b468c).jpg

[edit]

1900 date was wrong (actually 1978), I didn't find any evidence that Douglas Faulkner was an NPS employee, and in fact found a number of hints that he was a freelancer[6][7] – BMacZero (🗩) 16:17, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:1966 Topeka Tornado.jpg

[edit]

This file was initially tagged by Rlandmann as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: image source states that "All Photographs Appear Courtesy of the Topeka Capitol Journal" (Kansas newspaper). So although this was found on a .gov website, this is not a public domain image, and the "Author" field here is patently wrong. Yann (talk) 17:52, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Closing admins should familiarise themselves with the evidence and discussions at this RfC when closing this request.
  • Keep — Per Template:PD-NWS, the NWS have a direct disclaimer which states,“By submitting images, you understand that your image is being released into the public domain. This means that your photo or video may be downloaded, copied, and used by others.” The NWS webpage states, “All Photographs Appear Courtesy of the Topeka Capitol Journal”. This means, PD-NWS indicates this is in the public domain. That archived page where the image originates even has an archived disclaimer, which states, “The information on government servers are in the public domain, unless specifically annotated otherwise, and may be used freely by the public.” If/when copyrighted work is provided to the NWS, they appropriately make it known that it is copyrighted (example, see the “Tornado Photos” tab of this NWS webpage). In short, this is a public domain photograph. The PD-NWS template has been upheld even at deletion requests (Commons:Deletion requests/File:The Andover, Kansas EF3 tornado.jpg is a recent example). WeatherWriter (talk) 17:59, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Completely disagree “All Photographs Appear Courtesy of the Topeka Capitol Journal” = it indicates that it is PD-NWS, the NWS may have got in contact with Topeka Capitol Journal to use the photograph(s) but that doesn’t make it that the copyright is handed over or make it PD on its own. Bidgee (talk) 21:27, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Bidgee: As a note, Topeka Capitol Journal gave NWS the photos. If you reread the disclaimer (bolding is key highlights to see), "By submitting images, you understand that your image is being released into the public domain. This means that your photo or video may be downloaded, copied, and used by others." The difference is they gave the photo to NWS. Not the other way around: i.e. NWS does not ask for photos. You submit it to them and by submitting it, you release it into PD. Hopefully that explains the template better. WeatherWriter (talk) 03:49, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The internet didn’t exist in 1966. So using that statement in the disclaimer is misleading. Bidgee (talk) 04:09, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    NWS didn’t exist in 1966. NWS was created in 1970, so the idea that NWS could have contacted them for the photo is misleading anyway. No, they gave it to NWS. Sorry, but you are wrong. WeatherWriter (talk) 04:57, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    But it is you who is using the NWS disclaimer. My point was that statement from the disclaimer never existed in 1966. Bidgee (talk) 05:05, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Correct. That statement did not exist in 1966, given the organization who was given the photograph also did not exist in 1966. We can agree on that. I do not see how that is relevant though. WeatherWriter (talk) 05:20, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That is indeed the wording of one of many different such submission mechanisms that the NWS had over the course of very many years. We have no evidence that this was the mechanism by which the Topeka Capitol Journal transferred the file to the NWS. We simply don't know what their agreement was. Besides of which, we've recently heard from the NWS's own legal team, in whose opinion the presence of such a disclaimer is insufficient for a copyright holder to transfer their rights away, as so astutely already pointed out by @Berchanhimez: -- Rlandmann (talk) 04:11, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete — Like I said when I proposed this for speedy: the photo is explicitly credited to a newspaper. The mere fact that the NWS hosted it on their website does not mean that the newspaper or photographer transferred any rights away, much less released it into the public domain. This is basic to any understanding of copyright and licensing. --Rlandmann (talk) 22:01, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I can't find any copyright claims in the USCO under various names of the paper, which was required up until 1989. After 1989 you no longer had to register for copyrights. For instance the Associated Press did not copyright their images, the expense outweighed any advantage. --RAN (talk) 00:10, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment -- interesting! The Wikipedia article says that the paper only gained that name in 1981, through the amalgamation of two older Topeka, Kansas newspapers, the Topeka Daily Capital and Topeka State Journal. Presumably the photo was first published (if it were published and didn't just sit in a newspaper archive...) in one of those two papers. -- Rlandmann (talk) 04:19, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per PD-NWS. Sir MemeGod ._. (talk - contribs) 17:38, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Speedy delete per @Rlandmann. WestVirginiaWX (talk) 17:53, 13 August 2024 (UTC) [reply]
And I understand that it doesn’t technically meet speedy deletion criteria (according to @Yann) but it comes close to the F1 threshold (even if it barely misses it) so my “speedy delete” vote stands; even if it isn’t speedy, I am strongly in favor of deletion unless evidence can be found that no notice applies. WestVirginiaWX (talk) 18:31, 13 August 2024 (UTC) [reply]
It also potentially flirts with F6 threshold too. But I’ll let this discussion play out; I don’t think it’s worth re-tagging for speedy when it was previously tagged and the tag taken down. WestVirginiaWX (talk) 18:32, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
FYI anyone can contest a speedy deletion, and change it to a regular deletion. So there is no point to request a speedy deletion if someone else contest it. Yann (talk) 18:41, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well then treat it as a strong delete vote. WestVirginiaWX (talk) 23:16, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Henceforth; if I think it potentially meets speedy delete criteria; I’m going to use the term “strong delete” in my votes instead (unless it is very very clear that said criteria is met). WestVirginiaWX (talk) 23:19, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Delete per PRP. No evidence that this was ever released into public domain by the photographer. Berchanhimez (talk) 23:06, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Keep per RAN. ChessEric (talk) 06:02, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

More information

[edit]

According to And Hell Followed with It: Life and Death in a Kansas Tornado by Bonar Menninger (Emerald Book Co, 2010), this is one of a series of about 20 photos taken by Topeka Daily Capital photographer Perry Riddle as the tornado approached Topeka; many of which are reproduced in his book, including this one.

However, the oldest reference I can find to the publication of this particular image from the set is an earlier version of the NWS page, set up to commemorate the 37th anniversary of the tornado in 2003.

At the time of the tornado itself, the paper ran a different, more dramatic photo taken within moments of this one, that showed residents fleeing. I have confirmed the publication details of that image, including its lack of copyright notice and lack of copyright registration and uploaded it to File:1966 Topeka Tornado 2.jpg.

Without any evidence of a pre-1989 publication, this image appears to be a work-for-hire belonging to The Topeka Capital-Journal and will enter the public domain when that copyright expires after 120 years from creation, in 2087.

The COM:ONUS is now on anyone who wants to keep this file on the Commons to show where this image was published before 1989. Otherwise, we can delete this and use the perfectly good, known free alternative. --Rlandmann (talk) 12:19, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]


File:Early 1950s, Detroit, Michigan, Jefferson Avenue and Holcomb Street.jpg

[edit]

Proof that it was published before uploading on Flickr? (also no direct link to description page makes me wonder). Bedivere (talk) 20:16, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Link to the description page added. —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 20:43, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. It is still not clear this photo was actually published Bedivere (talk) 21:21, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. This should be deleted without proof of publication. —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 00:48, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Secretary Blinken Visits NEC Future Creation Hub (53888808696).jpg

[edit]

This file was initially tagged by 24.86.142.86 as Copyvio (Copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: Poster, no evidence for PD, COM:DW Yann (talk) 20:25, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep The map and the data on the screen is below COM:TOO--A1Cafel (talk) 09:55, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Delete - "...como"s website for MWC 2024 event" is on the lower left of this large map, so that website will likely have a separate copyright for all website content.
In addition, this map is likely copyrighted as a creative work with its added location pins with logos and inset data visualizations this map is above the threashold of originality per COM:TOO. -- Ooligan (talk) 14:27, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Permeable wood pavers made of Black Locust.jpg

[edit]

This file was initially tagged by SWinxy as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: Unlikely to be own work; larger version can be found in the background of https://web.archive.org/web/20210127105524/https://www.blacklocustlumber.com/proflow-pavers/ Yann (talk) 20:26, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Connect Transit Card Logo.png

[edit]

Need to update to a different version of logo, which is a different color, will not be using this version. Cloudsarepretty (talk) 21:05, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:May 22 2008 Kansas tornado.jpg

[edit]

This file was initially tagged by Rlandmann as no permission (No permission since). This isn’t a simple no permission, since the photograph was taken by a NWS employee (as admitted by the tagged in the edit summary) but the question is, was it done while under taking their duties and if not, was it given to the NWS through the upload form that had did state that photographs would be released as PD. Bidgee (talk) 21:34, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Closing admins should familiarise themselves with the evidence and discussions at this RfC when closing this request.
  •  Keep per arguments in the others in this series. Part of the process of submitting images is that they enter the public domain, no evidence to the contrary just generalized FUD. --RAN (talk) 00:13, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Do you have some evidence about which submission process was used for this particular image? There were (and are!) multiple submission processes available at various times. We have no way of knowing which submission process was used for any given image, nor in most cases whether any particular process was in place at the time the image was submitted to the NWS. Some of these were definitely intended make the image free,[8] some definitely did not,[9][10][11] and at least one is ambiguous.[12] That said, we've recently heard from the NWS's legal team who "do not believe a disclaimer, alone, can be used to transfer a copyright holder's ownership interest to NOAA or to abandon the copyright interest to the public domain" -- Rlandmann (talk) 04:56, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep Per the archived NWS webpage, the image is “courtesy of Chris Foltz, NWS Goodland Meteorologist”, i.e. taken by an NWS employee. {{PD-NWS}} applies here. Per the archived disclaimer link at the bottom of the NWS webpage, “The information on government servers are in the public domain”. WeatherWriter (talk) 05:44, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete -- Like @WeatherWriter: , I also noticed that the image is credited to an NWS employee. However, the threshold for such an image being ineligible for copyright is that it was created by an employee of the US Government while performing their official duties. The way this image is credited ("Courtesy of...") leads me to think that Foltz created this on their own time and provided it to the NWS as a private citizen. --Rlandmann (talk) 21:36, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Neutral per above. WestVirginiaWX (talk) 21:50, 11 August 2024 (UTC) [reply]
    I’m honestly leaning slightly towards keep just because it was credited to an employee. But I’ll remain officially neutral. WestVirginiaWX (talk) 16:19, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WeatherWriter and RAN Sir MemeGod ._. (talk - contribs) 17:36, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Very weak keep because NWS employee took it. And I imagine he may have been more likely to release into PD; but it’s only a very weak keep on account of @Rlandmann rationale of no proof and the employee was off duty at the time. 🌀 Hurricane Clyde 🌀 (talk) 18:33, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Keep per WeatherWriter. ChessEric (talk) 06:18, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per NWS employee rationle. Sir MemeGod ._. (talk - contribs) 23:38, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Merely being created by a NWS employee does not mean it is ineligible for copyright. The NWS does not assign meteorologists to take pictures of active tornadoes as part of their official duties. As such, while this photo was taken by a government employee, there is no evidence it was taken in the course of their official duties. An analogy would be a FEMA employee who's assigned to go organize disaster relief - their duties may include taking photographs of some things, but that doesn't mean that every photograph they take while deployed (or even employed) is an official photograph. Berchanhimez (talk) 22:46, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
They do infact have active teams that go out and do take photos of tornadoes as part of their official duties. See w:TOtable Tornado Observatory, and also check out this NOAA press release from July 2024: "Field experiments and data collection are the lifeblood of the NOAA National Severe Storms Laboratory (NSSL) and when one experiment ends, another is often poised and ready to begin. LIFT (Low-Level Internal Flows in Tornadoes) is the current field experiment NSSL scientists and partners (in this case, researchers from Texas Tech University) have undertaken...The first year of the LIFT experiment is now in the books, and it can only be described as a great success, with 11 deployments and numerous successful intercepts. An inordinate amount of data was collected..." The press release also has a photo of active government personnel literally chasing a tornado. So yes, the government does have people on official duties chasing tornadoes.
Also, yes, per the law, anything created (or photographed) during a government employee's official duty (i.e. getting paid on their salary to do) is in the public domain per Title 17, Chapter 1, Section 105 of the US Code. WeatherWriter (talk) 03:18, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
An image by TOTO wouldn't be credited to an individual. Images that are part of research partnered with universities would not be "in the course of official duties" of a NWS employee.
It is not a part of the salaried tasks of an employee that images they take on a personal camera automatically become public domain. Per precautionary principle, the onus is on the person arguing that it is a public domain image to prove it is such. Whether you do this via an email from the office or individual confirming this is public domain is up to you. But we cannot just assume it was their official duties because you think it may have been. Berchanhimez (talk) 04:10, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it is. I’ve been on a university project sponsored/worked with NOAA (I was employed by the university). All photos taken during a NOAA-funded project are public domain, whether by NOAA employees and university employees, since our payment came partially from NOAA. That direction came straight from one of the NOAA leads on the project as well, as everyone had to turn their photos taken during field deployment in. I’m sorry, but your knowledge of that topic is wrong. PRP requires significant doubt, and since we know it was taken by an NWS employee, ONUS is on those who argue for deletion to have a leg to stand on to prove it was not taken during their official duties. There is clear evidence, which we all have acknowledged, proving an NWS employee took the photo. WeatherWriter (talk) 16:00, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, that is not a universal. A NOAA grant, for example, does not always require the resulting research to be public domain. further, there is significant doubt - because the assumption that "any image of weather taken by someone who works for the NWS must have been taken in the course of their official duties" is absolutely absurd to claim. Berchanhimez (talk) 18:33, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Berchanhimez -- I disagree that "An image by TOTO wouldn't be credited to an individual." By now, two-ish months into this work, I've learned there's literally no such thing as "wouldn't" when it comes to NWS attributions!
That said, this attribution style is much more consistent with how they handle an individual contribution than something that the NWS actually owns.
I'm 99% sure that this is the photographer's own image, and the COM:ONUS is on the uploader or person wanting to keep an image here to demonstrate beyond significant doubt that the image is free.
While @WeatherWriter is absolutely correct that some government-created images of extreme weather events really do exist, these are so very rare that there will always be significant doubt that such any such image we find on a NWS/NOAA site is free unless specifically and proximally noted as such, or we have confirmation from the photographer. I've already reached out to them and am awaiting a reply. --Rlandmann (talk) 23:20, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment -- I now have a response from the photographer, who confirms that this is his own personal image, to which he owns the copyright:

"Yes, that is a photo that I took while storm chasing on May 22, 2008 north of Hoxie, KS. I was not on work duty at the time. I do still maintain the copyright for the photo."

I have forwarded his response to the VRT (ticket:2024101410008527).
I stand by the analysis in my previous comment that although an image like this could theoretically have been produced by an NWS employee on duty, in practice this is so rare that we must assume that such an image is unfree unless we have direct evidence to the contrary. --Rlandmann (talk) 13:36, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the investigation that confirmed both of our suspicions. I support speedy delete by anyone with access to the VRT to confirm that at this point. Alternatively, this should be deleted by any administrator per the confirmation this was not a photo taken by an employee in performance of their official duties. Berchanhimez (talk) 06:25, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Files uploaded by Jruderman (talk · contribs)

[edit]

Out of COM:SCOPE personal project art

The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 22:56, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps. They’re on my user page on :en:, and I think this thing might have legs. I’d especially appreciate a few days because I sent a commons link to a t-shirt screener. Jruderman. 107.127.56.116 23:41, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to keep the first pair as COM:INUSE (plus needed for some upcoming Phabricator requests). The "cattywampus" one is obsolete. Jruderman (talk) 12:35, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/2024/08/09&oldid=951429172"