September

September 1

File:Recording of the podcast Globaalsed Eestlased at the Opinion Festival 2022 in Paide, Estonia.jpg

There is no freedom of panorama in Estonia and the photo has logo too prominently depicted. Unless we get VRT-permission from "Globaalsed eestlased" rights holder, the image must be deleted. Taivo (talk) 08:42, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ma olen üsna kindel, et Rainer või Joonas pole selle pildi kasutamise vastu (Raineriga näiteks selle pildi tegemise ajal ka vestlesime, et see läheb Vikipeediasse), aga pole mahti lube taga ajada, nii et kui tuleb maha võtta siis tuleb maha võtta, mis seal ikka. Sillerkiil (talk) 12:17, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See on pigem ikkagi taustal. Vähemalt on üsna selge, et see logo pole kindlasti foto põhimotiiviks ja pole ka olnud põhjuseks, miks fotograaf selle ülesvõtte tegi. Kruusamägi (talk) 19:37, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment What about cropping away some of the top? --MGA73 (talk) 17:54, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:M14L88TH.jpg

Possible copyvio: Image missing full EXIF data, dubious claim of own work, VRT requested https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Wikimedia_VRT_release_generator CoffeeEngineer (talk) 11:25, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If this is a photo of a soldier in war then perhaps the meta data is removed to make sure the location is not visible? --MGA73 (talk) 17:56, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files uploaded by Mhmithun001 (talk · contribs)

Text content only, no description, bad names, should be done with LaTeX: en:Help:Displaying a formula.

Yann (talk) 15:45, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Generally agree, but seem currently in use in bn:w. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 18:00, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Mhmithun001: , please see the recommendation for a better format, Sadads (talk) 21:34, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:TFR early.jpg

Wrong license. According to [1] ITER Organization retains copyright in the pictures and videos. [...] The pictures and videos may not be sold, distributed or otherwise made available for use by third parties BorgQueen (talk) 19:27, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I already sent the release to the drop box. It follows: Maury Markowitz (talk) 00:07, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Maury,

Sorry for the late reply. You can certainly use all the materials found on our website, we would just appreciate if you could quote us @ITER Organization. Many thanks,

Cordiales salutations /Mit freundlichen Grüssen/Kind regards/Dozo yoroshiku

Cecile FOUCHER DE BRANDOIS Admin & Communication Assistant Communication Division

ITER Organization, Building 72/4048, Office of the Director-General Route de Vinon-sur-Verdon - CS 90 046 - 13067 St Paul Lez Durance Cedex - France Phone: +33 4 42 17 69 04 Get the latest ITER news on https://www.iter.org/whatsnew Follow us on: Twitter - Facebook - LinkedIn - Instagram - Career page

It doesn't work like that. It needs to go through Commons:Volunteer Response Team. SL93 (talk) 00:09, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In particular, Permission grants must specifically contain a free license grant and may not merely give permissions for Commons or Wikipedia. jlwoodwa (talk) 13:26, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

September 2

File:Araxá 2017.jpg

Já existente em outro local: https://tvaraxa.com.br/2019/10/15/prefeitura-de-araxa-intensifica-manutencao-e-limpeza-no-parque-do-cristo/ 2804:1E68:C609:489B:842:EC77:95E5:9EB5 03:04, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Araxá 2017.jpg

Já existente em outro local: https://tvaraxa.com.br/2019/10/15/prefeitura-de-araxa-intensifica-manutencao-e-limpeza-no-parque-do-cristo/ 2804:1E68:C609:489B:842:EC77:95E5:9EB5 03:08, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files in Category:Dajianpang Benzhu Temple

Photos of copyrighted text.

File:大建旁村本主庙-碑刻 2024-08-20 01.jpg - 重修赤男灵昭威光景武帝庙碑序大建旁村老龄协会全体叩立邑庶杨尚周撰序一九九八年八月五日
File:大建旁村本主庙-碑刻 2024-08-20 02.jpg - ditto
File:大建旁村本主庙-碑刻 2024-08-20 03.jpg - 修整我村本主庙功德碑记公元一九九八年仲夏洱源县双廊乡大建旁村全村居民立
File:大建旁村本主庙-碑刻 2024-08-20 04.jpg - 大建旁村本主庙重建碑序云南省大理市双廊镇大建旁村庶民同建同立邑人李正标撰序 2011

沈澄心 ✉ 04:40, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files in Category:Tomica

Same as Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Tomica models of automobiles

メイド理世 (talk) 06:54, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Salzburg-markatplatz-roller4.jpg

Source "own work" for a photograph taken in 1921 (= 103 years ago) apparently is incorrect; connected license self|cc-by-sa-4.0 equally unrealistic. Actual source of image (file) missing. Archie02 (talk) 07:33, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In case the file is kept it should be renamed to Salzburg-makartplatz-roller4.jpg to reflect the correct spelling of that square in Salzburg (see D:Q110305248) - use renaming rationale 3 or 6. --Archie02 (talk) 11:54, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Riverton–Latham, Illinois EF2 tornado March 31, 2023.png

This photograph was taken by w:Jeff Frame in the United States in 2023. He published it on his X feed,[2] and currently offers prints of it for sale.[3] When you right-click on that image, the following copyright notice appears: "These photos are copyrighted by their respective owners. All rights reserved. Unauthorized use prohibited."

[edit: correction] This photo was uploaded on the grounds that it was ineligible for copyright because it was taken by an employee of the US federal government in the course of their duties.

~~There is no claim that Frame was a US Federal government employee performing their duties,~~ However, there is no evidence that Frame was working for the federal govenment at the time, or if he was, that this photo was taken as part of his duties, or that this image is ineligible for copyright for any other reason.

As a photo taken in the United States after 1989, copyright came into being as soon as it was made.

This image ~~was uploaded to~~ has been hosted on the Commons under rationales expressed in the {{PD-NWS}} template ~~at the time~~; that

when the weather.gov general disclaimer says that material not in the public domain will be specifically noted, it means that it must be published with a formal copyright notice. Whereas in reality, not only has the NWS never promised any specific form of notation, there is ample evidence to demonstrate this is not their general practice. This belief also chooses to ignore the words elsewhere in the disclaimer that state that third party images are used by the NWS under license, and to contact the third-party creators for re-use.
the words of a NWS Sioux City regional office policy that placed some public submissions in the public domain somehow applied to this image, although there is nothing to connect it with that office. (The still was published by the Central Illinois office).

Without clearer evidence that Frame intended to place this photo in the public domain, we need to delete this under COM:PRP. Rlandmann (talk) 13:27, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Closing admins should familiarise themselves with the evidence and discussions at this RfC when closing this request.

Delete per @Rlandmann and PRP. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 15:01, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I didn’t even put it under that tag; someone else did. The tweet also says @NWSLincolnIL. How do you tweet a picture to a federal government agency that puts things in public domain and then say it’s copyrighted and people have to buy it? I don’t “buy” that.

Comment The guy has a Twitter account; why can’t we just ask him via a message? ChessEric (talk) 18:23, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies, @ChessEric -- you uploaded it as a work of a US government employee. I have corrected the DR text accordingly.

To your first question, I think there's a couple of points to clarify:

with only some very specific exceptions, every photo taken in the United States since March 1, 1989 is protected by copyright from the instant it is taken. The owner doesn't have to "say it's copyrighted" -- it just is. (the main exception we come across in weather photos is that the photo was taken by an employee of a federal government agency) That copyright exists until and unless the person or business who owns the copyright (and nobody else...) says it doesn't, or the copyright has expired due to age. When we say that we need evidence of permission on the Commons, it's this "until they say it doesn't" that we're looking for. We just don't have that with this photo.
the NWS does not, and indeed cannot put people's photos in the public domain. (This would be a case of the US federal government seizing citizens' private property...)
there's no evidence that Frame sent or submitted the image to the NWS; we have no idea how it ended up on weather.gov. It's equally, if not more, likely that an NWS employee spotted the image and asked him whether the NWS could use it. And whether he sent it to them, or they asked permission is actually irrelevant -- all that matters is what terms he agreed to.

This is, along with a few dozen similar photos, simply a case of a copyright owner giving the NWS permission to post their image on their website. That is not the same as placing an image in the pubic domain, or even allowing anyone else but the NWS to use the image.

To the second question, I've posted a more in-depth reply on my talk page, but the short answer is that of course anyone can reach out at any time to clarify with Frame what he agreed to, and if he didn't already release the image into the Public Domain or under a free license, whether he would be willing to now. --Rlandmann (talk) 23:05, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep For the following reasons:

Image originates on this web site by the National Weather Service. The caption of the image says, "Source: Jeff Frame", as with every other NWS-made image (automatically PD) on the webpage. At the bottom of the web page, it states, "Media use of NWS Web News Stories is encouraged! Please acknowledge the NWS as the source of any news information accessed from this site." At the very bottom of the web page, there is a Disclaimer button. According to that disclaimer, "The information on National Weather Service Web servers and Web sites is in the public domain, unless specifically annotated otherwise, and may be used freely by the public." We have confirmed evidence this image exists on a web site as well as the web servers of the National Weather Service (weather.gov).
For the clause of “specifically annotated otherwise”, NWS either allows the user to add a copyright “©” watermark to the image {as seen in this image, hosted on this NWS webpage} or by directly adding a copyright statement using “©” {as seen on this NWS webpage: difference between the “Tornado Photos” and “Damage” tabs}. That disclaimer is linked at the bottom of all three of the NWS webpages linked above (this image’s webpage + 2 I used as examples). To me, “specifically annotated otherwise” indicates a direct copyright (©) statement or watermark.
The NWS disclaimer also states, "Third-party information and imagery are used under license by the individual third-party provider. [...] Please contact the third-party provider for information on your rights to further use these data/products." See instances of usage below:

The photograph is used by FarmWeek Now in this article. The photo is attributed: "Photo by Jeff Frame, courtesy of National Weather Service Lincoln office".
Importantly, the photo uploaded by FarmWeek Now was created on April 4, 2023. This photograph was uploaded to Wikimedia on April 18, 2023, removing any possibility of the PD-NWS template from possibly being a cause of license laundering from the news station.

To me, all the things above point to this image being in the public domain and free-to-use. PD images may also be used for any purposes whatsoever, including commercial uses, meaning the selling of this photograph does not mean anything for the discussion nor does it take away the PD-nature of the photograph. WeatherWriter (talk) 02:04, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files uploaded by Wildvepr (talk · contribs)

No Commons:Freedom of panorama in Ukraine.

EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:48, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Фото сграфито на стене жилого дома размещены в соответсвтующей статье об арт-объектах города (https://uk.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%90%D1%80%D1%82_%D0%BE%D0%B1%E2%80%99%D1%94%D0%BA%D1%82%D0%B8_%D0%BC%D1%96%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B0_%D0%A1%D0%B2%D1%96%D1%82%D0%BB%D0%BE%D0%B4%D0%B0%D1%80%D1%81%D1%8C%D0%BA) и не могут быть никак представленые другим способом, размещены в низком качестве. Таким образом считаю, что можно применить Вікіпедія:Добропорядне використання Wildvepr (talk) 18:14, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well that would be a shame if we have to delete them because part of it might have been destroyed.[4][5]. Can at least a local copy be made under fair use? Nakonana (talk) 13:41, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:The Captains of the 5 Premier Hockey League teams along with the President of the Indian Hockey Federation (IHF) Shri K.P. S. Gill presenting a Hockey stick to the President Dr. A.P.J. Abdul Kalam in New Delhi on November 29, 2005.jpg

a low resolution version of File:The_Captains_of_the_5_Premier_Hockey_League_teams_along_with_the_President_of_the_Indian_Hockey_Federation_(IHF)_Shri_K.P._S._Gill_presenting_a_Hockey_stick_to_the_President_Dr._A.P.J._Abdul_Kalam_in_New_Delhi.jpg 源義信 (talk) 16:12, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Lomasontfo Dludlu.png

This file was initially tagged by 185.172.241.184 as Fair use (fair use) Might be in the public domain due to age. What is the duration for old pictures of Swaziland? Yann (talk) 16:40, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Chondrule Textures.jpg

No indication of permission for any of the images used especially the ones only surfaced in a journal article after being provided on a CD to the authors. Very useful picture but unfortunately probably a copyright violation. Mrfoogles (talk) 16:52, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Wired Productions Logo.png

Above COM:TOO UK, which is extremely low. Yeeno (talk) 18:54, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:The adelitas or soldaderas.jpg

Not an own work but dont delete outright, maybe its PD. 186.173.178.42 19:17, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Saraswati supercluster.png

Image misleading; uploader already flagged for making scientifically misleading images (see Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Celestialobjects; Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems/Archive 101#Celestialobjects). SkyFlubbler (talk) 19:18, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Caelum supercluster.png

Image misleading; uploader already flagged for making scientifically misleading images (see Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Celestialobjects; Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems/Archive 101#Celestialobjects). SkyFlubbler (talk) 19:20, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Spending her summer holidays.jpg

Mabel, chata, tu no eres Wikipedista ni lo fuiste nunca. Tal vez eres hermana de un bibliotecario? Pitutada? Any serious admin that sees your scarce and meaningless contributions to Wikipedia will "borrarte de la faz de la tierra". (Not even posing in swimwear will save you honey. :) 186.173.178.42 19:25, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please, do not delete it. It took work to create and upload. I do not understand why it is misleading. Is it because the pair is too close? It is a concept intended to depict the pair's overall appearance. It is my original work, and others may want to use it. This user nominated 20 of my images for deletion in 10 minutes. I am trying to improve my style. They claimed that the images were overly saturated, and while some had been copied from other sources, these were not. I don't see any reason for deleting these. Celestialobjects (talk) 00:32, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Lincoln, NE EF3 tornado.jpg

We currently have no evidence that this file is actually in the public domain. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 19:34, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As for why I’ve went ahead and nominated it now. I’d rather get all the high profile pictures that are affected straightened out first. This one was promoted to featured picture status on EnWiki. And as of now; there isn’t any evidence that we have permission to use this. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 19:36, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I’ll ping @Rlandmann for their take on this. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 20:35, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Closing admins should familiarise themselves with the evidence and discussions at this RfC when closing this request.

Keep per WeatherWriter.

@Hurricane Clyde: You can’t ping other editors into a discussion that needs a consensus. That is considered canvassing and WILL get you into trouble. ChessEric (talk) 04:14, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@ChessEric, that definitely wasn’t my intention. I had actually (for a small time) been in agreement with WeatherWriter and pinged Rlandmann because I know that they had a good understanding of the law that neither of us had; and because I knew that they would scrutinize the posts to find evidence (or lack thereof) of permission, whereas WeatherWriter (no offense intended) sees a PD attribution or a disclaimer that supposedly releases stuff into PD and doesn’t look any further to see if it’s legit. And secondly; sometimes when you see me “ping” other users in the middle of a discussion, I usually am doing that because it’s easier for me to create a ping than it is to type out the username, and not because I’m trying to canvass. (And yes I know very well that canvassing is wrong and will get me in trouble because I’ve seen plenty of accusations towards WeatherWriter over it); that said, I will admit that I’m not very good at differentiating between what is and isn’t canvassing. Next time I’ll ping everyone who’s recently been involved in discussions, would that be canvassing? Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 04:59, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And as for that last statement. Is pinging the entire group of people plus a few more (who has historically had differing opinions) any better than pinging only one person? Especially when my intent is to try to get more editors in the discussion to achieve a consensus (in a neutral, nonpartisan manner I will add) Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 05:00, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Because if that is the case; then I probably need to be whaled, or more likely slapped with a user warning template because I’ve pinged 8-10+ people before (especially in cases where there was a previous DR, I would ping everyone involved in that DR, plus every person that I could think of at the time so that the discussion could quickly be facilitated). Please tell me that isn’t canvassing. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 05:11, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

But thank you for reminding me @ChessEric; do you mind continuing this conversation on my talk page? That way we don’t go too off-topic. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 05:13, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Since the canvassing information page says that merely encouraging participation is ok; I’m going to ping quite a few people here, including everyone involved in past discussions (that I know of) pings: @Moonreach @Geni @Hamid Hassani @Giles Laurent @Sir MemeGod @Hurricanehink @Ks0stm @HikingHurricane @LightandDark2000 @Runningonbrains @TornadoLGS @GeorgeMemulous @TornadoInformation12; we’d really appreciate everyone’s opinion to hopefully build a consensus. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 05:32, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Forgot about @Consigned and @Berchanhimez; they have also been active in previous NWS-related deletion requests. Trying to get EVERYONE’s take on this because of the featured picture status. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 05:43, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

FYI @ChessEric, my mass ping was done within the policies on canvassing. “In general, it is perfectly acceptable to notify other editors of ongoing discussions, provided that it be done with the intent to improve the quality of the discussion by broadening participation to more fully achieve consensus” (from Wikipedia policy). Secondly; deletion requests on Commons are neither votes nor consensus; especially when based on copyright issues (see Commons:Canvassing). Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 19:23, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep For the following reasons:

Image originates on this web site by the National Weather Service. The caption of the image says, "Courtesy Anthony Constans." At the bottom of the web page, it states, "Media use of NWS Web News Stories is encouraged! Please acknowledge the NWS as the source of any news information accessed from this site." At the very bottom of the web page, there is a Disclaimer button. According to that disclaimer, "The information on National Weather Service Web servers and Web sites is in the public domain, unless specifically annotated otherwise, and may be used freely by the public." We have confirmed evidence this image exists on a web site as well as the web servers of the National Weather Service (weather.gov/).
For the clause of “specifically annotated otherwise”, NWS either allows the user to add a copyright “©” watermark to the image {as seen in this image, hosted on this NWS webpage} or by directly adding a copyright statement using “©” {as seen on this NWS webpage: difference between the “Tornado Photos” and “Damage” tabs}. That disclaimer is linked at the bottom of all three of the NWS webpages linked above (this image’s webpage + 2 I used as examples). To me, “specifically annotated otherwise” indicates a direct copyright (©) statement or watermark.
The NWS disclaimer also states, "Third-party information and imagery are used under license by the individual third-party provider. [...] Please contact the third-party provider for information on your rights to further use these data/products." See instances of usage below:

This image is directly used by The Business Times, a New York newspaper in this article. In the article, the image is captioned: "(Photo: Anthony Constans / Public domain)".
This image is used in the thumbnail of this YouTube video by meteorologist Trey Greenwood (known as Convective Chronicles). In the video description, the thumbnail image is credited, "Thumbnail images from Andrew Constans via NWS Omaha".
This image is used by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (parent organization to the NWS...branch of the U.S. Department of Commerce) in this Facebook post. No attribution is given to anyone.
This image is used by the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency (a branch of the U.S. Department of Defence) in this Facebook post. No attribution is given to anyone.
This image is used by the Association of Certified Meteorologists in this article. The photograph is attributed: "Image sourced from the NWS, original work by Anthony Constans."

To me, all the things above, as well as the review of the public-domain status of this image over on the English Wikipedia Featured Picture Candidates (note, this is a Featured Picture on EN-Wiki), there is sufficient evidence to point to this image being in the public domain. Any doubt would not be significant, which is what Commons:PRP states. PRP does not state "any doubt", but rather "significant doubt". We have news articles and the U.S. government indicating this is a public domain image. Therefore, my vote will remain Keep. WeatherWriter (talk) 20:39, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I’d like to see where the government explicitly indicates that it’s PD. Until then; I don’t care if it’s featured. I’m still going to support deletion Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 00:58, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you can prove it’s PD status; then I’m more than happy to withdraw my nomination. But until then my opinion isn’t changing. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 01:01, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(1) The Business Times indicates it is “Public Domain”, citing the author and not NWS. (2) On the Commons, the NWS disclaimer may be enough to keep the file. A recently closed deletion request for a file under the PD-NWS template was closed as keep with the main keep rational being the NWS general disclaimer. So right there is 2 very easy evidence points on it being free-to-use. WeatherWriter (talk) 08:07, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment — NOTE: The NWS general disclaimer may be enough to keep the file. A recently closed deletion request (closed September 2024) for a file under the PD-NWS template was closed as keep with the main keep rational being the NWS general disclaimer. WeatherWriter (talk) 14:16, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Alright; can you please post a link to these articles and particularly government agencies that indicate PD status. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 15:48, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But until I see proof. I’m still going to support deletion under the precautionary principle. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 15:50, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Here is the raw URL (I presume you missed it) for a PD-status of the image, citing the photographer, not NWS: https://www.btimesonline.com/articles/166398/20240522/tornado-kills-multiple-people-devastates-small-iowa-town-of-greenfield.htm WeatherWriter (talk) 15:52, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok that appears to unambiguously states that it is public domain. I’ll get @Rlandmann’s take though just in case there are objections. My only concern would be that they assumed it was PD rather than proved it. But if there isn’t any objections; I would be willing to withdraw my nomination, because it doesn’t appear to rise to the PRP threshold of “significant doubt”. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 18:36, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not seeing where the photographer has released their rights? --Rlandmann (talk) 19:38, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly what I thought too. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 20:25, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The photo is attributed “public domain” by RS media. I have yet to see any evidence this photograph is copyrighted. What we have is (1) the U.S. government (3 branches) using the photo, RS media using the photo, and confirmed meteorologists/historians using the photo…all giving evidence to say it is free-to-use. That is evidence of it being free-to-use. The deletion reason was “no evidence”. If all of that together is no evidence, then every disclaimer (U.S. government, YouTube, Flickr, ect…) & every attribution would be invalid as there would be no confirmed evidence it was released. I will be really interested to see how the administrator closes this one in the end, given no evidence of it being copyrighted has been presented, while several instances of claims of “free use” have been presented. Basically, no clear claims of “significant doubt” have been presented in this discussion. WeatherWriter (talk) 20:37, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well per @Rlandmann, I am NOT going to be withdrawing my nomination. Since there is some reason to think that these organizations assumed PD probably based on the tag drummed up by User:Runningonbrains. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 21:21, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As a note, the NOAA post (not NWS, I mean the NOAA post mentioned above) was posted on May 8, 2024. The image was uploaded to the Commons on May 18. It is not possible for NOAA to have gotten it from the Commons PD template by User:Runningonbrains, as they made their post 10 days earlier. WeatherWriter (talk) 22:04, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Since March 1, 1989, published without a notice/without attribution in the United States means we must assume it's under copyright unless we have evidence that either the copyright holder (and nobody else...) released it from copyright, or that it was ineligible for copyright in the first place for some reason. --Rlandmann (talk) 23:26, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. None of the evidence provided actually proves that the person who took the image intended to and more importantly did release it into the public domain. Berchanhimez (talk) 09:12, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you exclude everything regarding NWS/NOAA/The U.S. government, do you have any proof The Business Times did not check with the photographer? They claim the photo is "public domain" and they cite the photographer: "(Photo: Anthony Constans / Public domain)". Is that not proof? WeatherWriter (talk) 18:43, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's very clearly not proof that The Business Times checked with the photographer.

The BT article is describing a completely different tornado, the w:2024 Greenfield tornado, even explicitly (and wrongly...) captioning as such. If they can't even be bothered finding a photo of the right tornado, I'm not overflowing with confidence that they were engaged in diligent photo clearances.

The publication history of this particular image seems to run:

April 26 -- Lincoln tornado, the subject of this photo
between May 3 and May 5 -- NWS Omaha publishes the photo, crediting Anthony Constans. We don't know what kind of use Constans agreed to (ie, what the license was). The NWS Omaha page doesn't mention the public domain at all; to see that language, you have to navigate to the disclaimer.
May 18 -- Nicholas Krasznavolgyi uploads a cropped version of the photo to Commons (note in particular the houses to the far left and far right of the NWS-hosted image that have been cropped out of the Commons-hosted version), selects CC-0/public domain as the rationale, and the image is tagged as such.
May 20 -- you (WeatherWriter) change the tag to PD-NWS, which at the time also prominently identifies the image as public domain
May 21 -- Greenfield tornado, the subject of the BT article
May 22 -- Terry Zhou files a story with The Business Times about the tornado that happened the previous day. Either he, or an editor, selects Constans' photo of the Lincoln tornado to illustrate the article. The version of the photo they use is cropped exactly the same way as the version hosted on Commons.

Given that the NWS page doesn't contain the words "public domain", and the cropping, the most likely scenario by far is that Zhao or their editor sourced the image right here on Commons.

The idea that BT sourced the photo from here, then took the extra steps to identify Constans, and reach out to him, only for him to tell BT that it's in the public domain is a very, very distant third. --Rlandmann (talk) 21:57, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's not proof. They could've been relying on the same "assumptions" that is being used here to argue that it is public domain. Nobody except the photographer themselves can release it into the public domain. Berchanhimez (talk) 03:49, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is absolutely not proof; especially since you described it. I had initially pinged Rlandmann over here to get a second opinion about the PD attribution because I was going to withdraw my nomination since WeatherWriter gave a rather compelling argument (I ended up getting accused of canvassing in the process (see ChessEric statement) but that’s besides the point); and then Rlandmann said “I’m not seeing where the photographer has released their rights?” (Emphasis mine); and well that turned my opinion real quick. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 14:16, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I understand the frustration of some users. In an ideal world, we could trust a large organization to be correct, and would be able to assume that that organization's lawyers would ensure that their policies/procedures prevent things like this from happening. The issue here is that the NWS, as a government agency tasked with reporting on weather/environmental issues, likely has a "perfect" fair use claim to violate copyright on their website for the public good or for their purpose. What they don't have the right to do is permit others to also do the same. Furthermore, news organizations may have a valid fair use claim to them as "breaking" events for which the images are necessary for public information/etc - but this is much more dubious of a fair use claim. Regardless, the fact that these sources at least in theory have facially valid claims of fair use means we should consider how accurate/exact they're even trying to be with their use of images such as this. Berchanhimez (talk) 04:24, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. If I could upload any NWS file stored on their servers, my job creating the articles I want to work on would be so much easier, but no way of knowing if this is in the public domain. It's sort of an all-or-noting event, isn't it? GeorgeMemulous (talk) 12:11, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi George -- just pointing out that such images can still be used on English Wikipedia under "fair use" -- we just can't host them on Commons. You can find a description of the policy here, and if you need help with how to upload an image that way, please reach out to me and I'll be very happy to help you. --Rlandmann (talk) 20:51, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files in Category:Logos of Copa del Rey

Possibly above COM:TOO Spain.

Jonteemil (talk) 20:05, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Iniciativa 2021 logo.svg

Possibly above COM:TOO Spain. Jonteemil (talk) 20:08, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Parc Natural de la Muntanya de Montserrat.svg

Possibly above COM:TOO Spain. Jonteemil (talk) 20:10, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is the logo of a public natural park made by the Generaliat de Catalunya, a Spanish public administration, and is available for download at https://identitatcorporativa.gencat.cat/ Capa23 (talk) 08:49, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

From https://web.gencat.cat/ca/ajuda/avis_legal/: (Google translate from Catalan) The use of logos, brands, shields and distinctive symbols of the Generalitat de Catalunya in publications and websites that are not participated in or sponsored by this institution is not authorized under any circumstances. These corporate graphic identity elements are the exclusive property of the Generalitat de Catalunya and are protected by the current applicable legislation. Jonteemil (talk) 10:20, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files in Category:Logos of the UEFA Champions League

Above COM:TOO Switzerland. The UCL logo has been deleted before as copyvio as well.

Jonteemil (talk) 20:28, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files in Category:FC Basel

Possibly above COM:TOO Switzerland. Enwiki uses the logo as non-free/fair use.

Jonteemil (talk) 20:35, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Surely not above TOO in Switzerland. Misjudgment in en.wikipedia is not of relevance here. 194.230.147.217 05:09, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I also think that this is below Swiss TOO. Gnom (talk) 05:26, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files in Category:SVG logos of Asian Football Confederation

Possibly too complex for {{PD-textlogo}}.

Jonteemil (talk) 20:36, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:IFFF Logo.svg

Possibly too complex for {{PD-textlogo}}. Jonteemil (talk) 21:21, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:1991-04-26 Red Rock, Oklahoma, tornado.jpg

This photograph was taken by Gene Moore in the United States in 1991. He published it on his (now defunct) website Tornado Chase Day.(from here, click "rain and hail" to find the image here). At the time this image was published on his site, Moore was selling licenses to use his weather images online, and specifically states that a copyright release is necessary.[6]

There is no claim that Moore was a US federal government employee performing their duties, or that this image is ineligible for copyright for any other reason.

As a photo taken in the United States after 1989, copyright came into being as soon as it was made.

This image was uploaded to the Commons under rationales expressed in the {{PD-NWS}} template at the time; that

when the weather.gov general disclaimer says that material not in the public domain will be specifically noted, it means that it must be published with a formal copyright notice. Whereas in reality, not only has the NWS never promised any specific form of notation, there is ample evidence to demonstrate this is not their general practice. This belief also chooses to ignore the words elsewhere in the disclaimer that state that third party images are used by the NWS under license, and to contact the third-party creators for re-use.
the words of a NWS Sioux City regional office policy that placed some public submissions in the public domain somehow applied to this image, although there is nothing to connect it with that office. (The still was published by the Norman, OK office).

Without clearer evidence that Moore intended to place this photo in the public domain, we need to delete this under COM:PRP. Rlandmann (talk) 03:27, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Closing admins should familiarise themselves with the evidence and discussions at this RfC when closing this request.

Delete per precautionary principle. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 15:49, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I believe this is Moore's Facebook profile. Ixfd64 (talk) 18:58, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

September 3

File:Yertysbayev E.K. Predsedatel.jpg

Non-free image Malik Nursultan B (talk) 02:35, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Stefan Martin, Artist, Printmaker - Press photo Oct 24,1973.jpg

This file was initially tagged by Timtrent as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: "Uploaded a work by Press Photo, Trenton Times, NJ from Historic Images, Oct. 12-1973 Vintage Photo with UploadWizard". Pre-1978 US photo, should be discussed. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:06, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep We have several of Press Photo, including the backs, they never copyrighted their publicity photos. --RAN (talk) 02:34, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files in Category:Postal covers of Ukraine

Per Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Ukraine postage stamps of the Ukraine are in the public domain due to being state symbols of payment. There's zero evidence that it would extend to random artwork on a postal cover just because it has a stamp on it though. Postal covers clearly aren't "laws, decrees, resolutions, court awards, State standards, etc." and that's assume they were even created by the Ukrainian government to begin with. So these images should be deleted as COPYVIO unless someone can provide to the contrary.

Adamant1 (talk) 04:22, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

знаки поштової оплати (далі - ЗПО) - поштові марки, марковані конверти та картки, які випускає національний оператор поштового зв’язку (далі - національний оператор) та які є засобами оплати послуг поштового зв’язку.--『Shiro Neko』^Обг. 07:40, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm aware of what the law says. I'm not nominating these images for deletion because of the stamps though and these aren't "marked envelopes" either. Their just envelopes that someone put a stamp on. So there's absolutely no reason what-so-ever the artwork on them would be PD. You can't just put Ukrainian stamp on whatever you want and then claim it's PD because the stamp is. That's not how the law works. --Adamant1 (talk) 07:45, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

this not (File:Konvert-pidkamin.jpg, File:Stamp of Ukraine ua180cvs Cover.jpg, File:Музей Седова 165.JPG) stamped envelope? And — File:345Колекція конвертів України № 2.jpg (Львівська & Покровська stamped envelope, Куліш та Куїнджі - PD-old); File:345Колекція конвертів України.jpg all stamped envelope [7], except Їжакевич [8] maybe PD-Ukraine)) 『Shiro Neko』^Обг. 14:41, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Музей Седова 165.JPG looks like a stamped envelope. So I stand corrected on that one. The others don't though. Except for File:Stamp of Ukraine ua180cvs Cover.jpg, but it has a pictorial postmark and it's not really clear to me if postmarks are covered by the law or not. File:345Колекція конвертів України.jpg clearly has envelopes with stamps on them. So they are copyrighted. BTW, if you look at the lower quality images like File:Конверт Святогорская лавра.jpg there's a raised or discolored square area around the stamps. So they aren't pre-stamped. The same goes for your first example, File:Konvert-pidkamin.jpg. Although admittedly it's hard to tell but there's a small square area around the stamp that's a slightly different color then the envelope. The image quality is just horrible. --Adamant1 (talk) 01:42, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Worcester Skyline seen from Union Station Parking Garage Garage.jpg

This is a pixel shifted image, and has some artifacts from subject movement that I did not notice when uploading (see the rainbow streak from a moving car and pedestrian on the street on the left, or the artifacted flags on the center-right). This may be useful as an image to demonstrate flaws with pixel shift photography though, and I can provide a non-pixel-shifted version of this image as a comparison if that is worthwhile. 4300streetcar (talk) 05:42, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A non-pixel shifted image is now here:

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Worcester_Skyline_seen_from_Union_Station_Parking_Garage_No_Pixel_Shift.jpg

If I format it as a comparison, I can do it similar to the other pixel-shifted image I uploaded which had similar issues here, where I point out the specific defects and give a non-pixel shifted reference here:

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Worcester_Union_Station_seen_from_Union_Station_Parking_Garage_Garage.jpg

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Worcester_Union_Station_seen_from_Union_Station_Parking_Garage_No_Pixel_Shift.jpg

I can eventually update the Wikipedia article on pixel shift photography to note defects that can occur, which it currently does not discuss - there are likely several credible sources on this type of defect that can be cited. 4300streetcar (talk) 06:24, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keeping it and providing the contrast seems useful. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:33, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Hector Pedone.jpg

This file was initially tagged by Wdwd as Speedy (SD) and the most recent rationale was: G8
Converted to regular DR to allow for discussion, as image is from 1974 and therefore might be PD-Argentina. -- Túrelio (talk) 07:17, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:The Andover, Kansas EF3 tornado.jpg

This file was initially tagged by WeatherWriter as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: Per the NWS Public Domain template, Thus, all images on NWS servers are public domain (including "Courtesy of ..." and “Photo by ...” images) unless specifically stated otherwise through a copyright watermark. This specifically has a watermark on the image, therefore it is not in the public domain and is copyrighted. —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 00:03, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is more complex than that. The image is watermarked with attribution information only, and I would say that that is not enough to claim copyright given the plain language of the disclaimer at [9] (notwithstanding the template). But that disclaimer seems to only apply to the Sioux Falls, SD office (see URL and header). The correct disclaimer is [10], and provides that "The information on National Weather Service (NWS) Web pages are in the public domain, unless specifically noted otherwise", but I don't see anything telling the uploaders that they are dedicating the image to the public domain... —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 00:12, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It is assumed through the upload process. In the first disclaimer link you sent: “By submitting images, you understand that your image is being released into the public domain.” All the NWS offices speak for the NWS, as they are just location-based offices. Here was a previous discussion involving NWS webpage copyrighted images: [11]. The reason that image was deleted was due to it having a copyright watermark. It is rare to have a “unless specifically noted otherwise” instance on NWS webpages. this one for 1979 tornadoes is a rare exception. But looking at this web page for some 2014 tornadoes (deletion example from above), some of the images have a watermark. Some do not. NWS allows copyrighted and public domain images to be submitted. Any image with a watermark (or the rare “noted otherwise cases”) are not public domain, while any images without a watermark are considered public domain. WeatherWriter (talk) 03:26, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mdaniels5757 — You may be right. Hopefully this get’s closed soon so a verdict for these type of images. WeatherWriter (talk) 18:53, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing wrong with keeping this photo. It came directly from NWS Wichita event page, so its public domain. ChessEric (talk) 22:01, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: An attribution watermark is not an explicit claim of copyright, and per the NWS T&C, it can be reasonably assumed that the photographer understood that his work was going to become PD. —holly {chat} 00:05, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

File:The Andover, Kansas EF3 tornado.jpg

This photograph was taken by Mike Umscheid in the United States in 2022. His website is currently under maintenance (scheduled to complete on August 30), but up to very recently, this image was published there and offered for sale.

Umscheid is or was an employee of NWS Dodge City,[12] but there is no claim that he took this photo while performing his official duties, and the fact that he offers the image for sale suggests that he was taking photos on his own time. There is no reason to think that this image is ineligible for copyright for any other reason.

As a photo taken in the United States after 1989, copyright came into being as soon as it was made.

This image was originally uploaded to the Commons under a CC-0 tag, although there was no evidence that this ever applied to this image. Another user then re-tagged it to keep under the rationales expressed in the {{PD-NWS}} template at the time; that

when the weather.gov general disclaimer says that material not in the public domain will be specifically noted, it means that it must be published with a formal copyright notice. Whereas in reality, not only has the NWS never promised any specific form of notation, there is ample evidence to demonstrate this is not their general practice. This belief also chooses to ignore the words elsewhere in the disclaimer that state that third party images are used by the NWS under license, and to contact the third-party creators for re-use.
the words of a NWS Sioux City regional office policy that placed some public submissions in the public domain somehow applied to this image, although there is nothing to connect it with that office. (The photo was published by the Wichita office).

The image has already been through one DR, with the closing admin concluding that "it can be reasonably assumed that the photographer understood that his work was going to become PD"

Since then, we've learned that:

the idea that the NWS labels copyright-protected images with an explicit copyright notice is almost never true A20
the terms and conditions that place some public submissions to the Sioux City office are only one of many such conflicting terms and conditions scattered around weather.gov A3
NWS offices solicit images that they can use by permission of the photographer. eg

Without clearer evidence that Umscheid intended to place this photo in the public domain, we need to delete this under COM:PRP. Rlandmann (talk) 07:50, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Closing admins should familiarise themselves with the evidence and discussions at this RfC when closing this request.

Keep — Per the disclaimer linked at the bottom on the NWS webpage with this image, "The information on National Weather Service (NWS) Web pages are in the public domain, unless specifically noted otherwise, and may be used without charge for any lawful purpose...The information on National Weather Service Web servers and Web sites is in the public domain, unless specifically annotated otherwise, and may be used freely by the public." On the Commons, the NWS disclaimer may be enough to keep the file. A recently closed deletion request for a file under the PD-NWS template was closed as keep with the main keep rational being the NWS general disclaimer. Public domain images can be used for any purpose and may be used commercially for profit, so arguments about it being sold are not valid in my view. Based on the NWS disclaimer, the recently closed DR, and the previous DR for this image, I believe it should be kept. WeatherWriter (talk) 08:02, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per PRP. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 16:59, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And @WeatherWriter, they renominated the file. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 17:00, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that it’s being sold for a minimum of $50 (USD) is an even bigger indicator of its unfree status. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 17:10, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It has been a week now with no one except myself commenting: I am going to ping some more people into this discussion; to hopefully get a better consensus. Pinging all or most people who have participated in these deletion requests. @Sir MemeGod @Ks0stm @Hurricanehink @Consigned @Berchanhimez @ChessEric @Jmabel @Yann Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 16:05, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Offering an image for sale is not evidence of unfree status. Alamy and Getty do this all the time, when they think they can get away with it. Also, I know a photographer (contractor, not government employee) who does government projects where he signs papers putting the photos in the public domain, but that doesn't mean he won't gladly making money selling excellent prints of his work, including signed prints.

@Hurricane Clyde: is that selling about physical copies (in which case I really think it isn't evidence at all) or about rights to use the image online (in which case it might be weak evidence, per my remark about Alamy and Getty)? - Jmabel ! talk 19:57, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It’s physical copies. But you’d think it would be less than $50. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 20:19, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Like @Jmabel said, selling photos is not evidence that it is unfree. For evidence opposite that idea, we have to turn to Commons:Deletion requests/File:A tornado funnel is shown moving through Xenia.jpg, where the AP is falsely claiming copyright over a free-to-use (CC 2.0 or PD) image and they are selling said free-to-use photograph. The big kicker is that the AP also have the wrong creation date for this photograph, which they are selling. Part of the PD (and/or Commons's allowed CC licenses) is that the photos can be used for whatever purposes you desire (if CC, as long as attribution is given). That includes reselling them for a profit. So the selling of photographs is not evidence whatsoever of a photo's copyright status, as clearly seen with the AP's fake claim on the 1974 Xenia tornado's photograph. WeatherWriter (talk) 00:16, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- the creation date is right; the anomaly is easily demonstatably due to automated timezone conversions. I'll come back to that one in due course.

What the two cases do have in common is that whoever wants to keep either of these images has been unable to furnish any evidence that the copyright owner ever gave up their rights. In the case of the Xenia image, the folks who want to keep it can't even show whether it's PD or CC-BY... But anyway, that's another story. --Rlandmann (talk) 04:24, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@WeatherWriter; I am well aware of what copy fraud is. Thank you. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 04:40, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Just offering an explanation that when I've noted images for sale in DRs, I'm not saying this is proof against release into the PD, but when it's a pro or semi-pro photographer's image, to my mind it's strongly suggestive that the photographer had/has commercial interest in the image and is prima facie less likely to have agreed to give the image away. I think this is substantially different from a case where a photographer is working under a government contract in the first place.

Anyway, the outreach to photographers continues, but a couple of recent angry replies tends to confirm my hunch. --Rlandmann (talk) 00:19, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have asked this person on X about whether the image is copyrighted. I will give my answer once he replies. ChessEric (talk) 02:06, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. The conversation above about whether image distributors such as Getty only sell copyrighted images or not is irrelevant. What's relevant is whether this image has sufficient proof of it's public domain (or freely licensed) status, which has not been given. Berchanhimez (talk) 03:29, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And we all know how heated those discussions can get. @Rlandmann was cussed out in one email over an NWS copyright question. That image got speedily deleted. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 04:42, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:The Voidz - Like All Before You.png

Cited source only says that the band credited the artist who created the album’s artwork (@dolorsilentium). Many fans were quick to call out the fact that the artist is an AI artist, which by itself is not enough for Commons to declare that this image is unambiguously the work of a computer algorithm or artificial intelligence and does not contain sufficient human authorship to support a copyright claim and therefore public domain.

Even if the fans are right and the artist always uses AI in their work, this particular image may be a combination of AI and human authorship, for all we know. Belbury (talk) 08:49, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep from the same source: After much criticism, Julian Casablancas responds to fans disappointed by The Voidz’s AI-made artwork for their new album, 'Like All Before You.'

From Casablancas:"the [man-made] artist wanted to charge $150,000. What is this 1988? we def didn’t go out of our way to use Ai art … I just objectively – in the wilderness of art out there – liked the image and we were working with several ideas and just all objectively collectively liked it best … also it’s an Ai artist who does cool airbrush anime stuff, we didn’t just type something in… cover art @dolorsilentium. Sorry to The Scared Of News Tools tribe, truly, sorry. But art plops up, best idea/image/noise/ in the end should win … and i’m not endorsing” Ai, i don’t DWELL ON IT, but it’s part of culture now … Relax, it’s iphone”.

There was a human idea for the album cover, the design was input into the tool (like in any AI created image)—which contradicts what Julian said above about not only typing what they wanted—and the AI tool created the final result. Ideas are not copyrightable in the United States, where Casablancas is from. Tbhotch™ 09:22, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If there are contradictory views of how the image might have been created, Commons cannot rule that it does not contain sufficient human authorship to support a copyright claim. --Belbury (talk) 09:32, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. I can't find anything in that post or elsewhere which makes it clear whether this person is just playing with prompts or manipulating the images, too. They certainly don't look manipulated beyond crops, but that doesn't mean much. There's not much I can find about the artist's process out there. He uses stable diffusion, and I think I'm ok concluding this is just someone who's found a way to produce a certain kind of aesthetics and decided to make it his thing. That's well and good, but I think we need more evidence that there's anything beyond prompt engineering here, no? — Rhododendrites ^talk | 12:43, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would have thought it was the other way around! That if we find an image online and it looks like AI and quacks like AI, but nobody is on record as saying that it definitely is AI, then have to we dig a little further to make sure.

If fans and music blogs were calling out some hypothetical album cover as seeming like it was surely "taken from an old public domain collection" or "made by a US government employee during the course of their duties" (and the band made some defensive response about how the artist does work with public domain collections, or for the US government), we'd look into the situation further - and if we couldn't confirm it, I assume we'd stop short of giving it a Commons-approved public domain stamp.

Am I being naïve in that? I started a thread on the AI-generated media talk page earlier in the month but it got no response.

(From that thread, there's also the issue that if the artist is working in the UK, China or Hong Kong, the image may have some copyright protection. From @dolorsilentium's social media presence it's not immediately obvious to me where they might be based.) Belbury (talk) 18:55, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As Tbhotch says, the source explicitly says that the image is "AI-made". Di (they-them) (talk) 20:54, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Supercell hail core near Stratford, Texas on May 18, 2023.jpg

Too perfect image with enhanced color and sharp edges between the clouds and the surface view. Seems to me a composition of two images. Pierre cb (talk) 00:25, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: DR was withdrawn by nominator. --Rosenzweig τ 08:23, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

File:Supercell hail core near Stratford, Texas on May 18, 2023.jpg

This photograph was taken by Kyle Cutler in the United States in 2023. He published it on his X feed,[13] and in the comments that follow, we can see the license terms that he agreed to with the NWS:

@NWSAmarillo: Awesome photo! Do you mind if we use this in a web story?

@K_CuT_Wx: Thank you! Yes you can share in a web story :)

@NWSAmarillo: Awesome, thank you!

This is a rare case where we can see exactly what the photographer agreed to, and it wasn't putting the image in the public domain.

This image was uploaded to Commons on the basis that it was the work of a US federal government employee performing their duties, but no evidence was provided for this. There is no claim that this image is ineligible for copyright for any other reason.

As a photo taken in the United States after 1989, copyright came into being as soon as it was made.

The uploader later revised the rationale to keep the image under the rationales expressed in the {{PD-NWS}} template at the time; that

when the weather.gov general disclaimer says that material not in the public domain will be specifically noted, it means that it must be published with a formal copyright notice. Whereas in reality, not only has the NWS never promised any specific form of notation, there is ample evidence to demonstrate this is not their general practice. This belief also chooses to ignore the words elsewhere in the disclaimer that state that third party images are used by the NWS under license, and to contact the third-party creators for re-use. And, of course, in this instance we can see that the photographer merely gave the NWS permission to use the image, and he is simply credited "Credit: Spike Davis".
the words of a NWS Sioux City regional office policy that placed some public submissions in the public domain somehow applied to this image, although there is nothing to connect it with that office. (The photo was published by the Amarillo office).

Without clearer evidence that Cutler intended to place this photo in the public domain, we need to delete this under COM:PRP. Rlandmann (talk) 08:58, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Closing admins should familiarise themselves with the evidence and discussions at this RfC when closing this request.

Keep Creator posted on X that they were happy to see it in the public domain on Wikipedia/Wikimedia, which included a screenshot of it saying it was PD. WeatherWriter (talk) 09:10, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not seeing the part where they said anything about the public domain, so I've messaged them to verify. --Rlandmann (talk) 09:33, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The second image they posted was a screenshot of the Wikipedia layout, which does say “public domain” at the bottom. That seems like an acknowledgment to me. WeatherWriter (talk) 09:34, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There's a bunch of assumptions there, which still don't stack up to evidence of permission. Let's see what they say. --Rlandmann (talk) 09:43, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 18:45, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I’m going to update my !vote to Neutral pending additional details. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 23:46, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:June 15, 1990 Nebraska F4 Tornado by Calvin Brown.jpg

This image has been sourced from a 1990 issue of the NOAA publication Storm Data

Per the source, it is credited to Calvin Brown. There is no claim that he was acting as an employee of the US federal government, so as a photo taken in the United States after 1989, copyright in this image existed as soon as it was created, belonging to him.

This image has been uploaded to Commons based on a rationale that it is covered by the site disclaimer for weather.gov and/or the submission guidelines for the Sioux City NWS office.

This file is not hosted on weather.gov, so the disclaimer for that site does not appear to apply, and was published by the NOAA in a print publication to which the Sioux City office image submission guidelines do not appear to apply. Rlandmann (talk) 09:04, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Closing admins should familiarise themselves with the evidence and discussions at this RfC when closing this request.

Delete per @Rlandmann. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 18:44, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Supercell with an EF3 tornado on June 23, 2023.jpg

This photograph was taken by Jake Thompson in the United States in 2023. He published it on his X feed,[14] and in the comments that follow, we can see the license terms that he agreed to with the NWS:

@NWSPueblo: Hey Jake, would we have permission to use this photo for write ups, spotter talks, and other educational purposes with credit to you?

@ChaserJake94: Yes, of course!

@NWSPueblo: Thank you so much!

This is a rare case where we can see exactly what the photographer agreed to, and it wasn't putting the image in the public domain. It doesn't even give the NWS permission to use it for all purposes.

This image was uploaded to Commons on the basis that it was the work of a US federal government employee performing their duties, but no evidence was provided for this. There is no claim that this image is ineligible for copyright for any other reason.

As a photo taken in the United States after 1989, copyright came into being as soon as it was made.

The uploader later revised the rationale to keep the image under the rationales expressed in the {{PD-NWS}} template at the time; that

when the weather.gov general disclaimer says that material not in the public domain will be specifically noted, it means that it must be published with a formal copyright notice. Whereas in reality, not only has the NWS never promised any specific form of notation, there is ample evidence to demonstrate this is not their general practice. This belief also chooses to ignore the words elsewhere in the disclaimer that state that third party images are used by the NWS under license, and to contact the third-party creators for re-use.
the words of a NWS Sioux City regional office policy that placed some public submissions in the public domain somehow applied to this image, although there is nothing to connect it with that office. (The photo was published by the Pueblo office).

Without clearer evidence that Thompson intended to place this photo in the public domain, we need to delete this under COM:PRP. Rlandmann (talk) 09:38, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Closing admins should familiarise themselves with the evidence and discussions at this RfC when closing this request.

Keep — Per the disclaimer linked at the bottom on the webpage, "The information on National Weather Service (NWS) Web pages are in the public domain, unless specifically noted otherwise, and may be used without charge for any lawful purpose...The information on National Weather Service Web servers and Web sites is in the public domain, unless specifically annotated otherwise, and may be used freely by the public." On the Commons, the NWS disclaimer may be enough to keep the file. A recently closed deletion request for a file under the PD-NWS template was closed as keep with the main keep rational being the NWS general disclaimer. Public domain images can be used for any purpose and may be used commercially for profit, so arguments about it being sold are not valid in my view. Based on the NWS disclaimer and the recently closed DR I believe it should be kept. WeatherWriter (talk) 09:48, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete per @Rlandmann. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 18:43, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
At least a local copy can be kept on En Wiki under fair use with credit to the author given that the author gave permission for "educational purposes". The permission might even go beyond just fair use, but would still not be compatible with Commons. Nakonana (talk) 19:24, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed that with practically any of the images under consideration here, en:Wikipedia could use the images under "fair use"; however just noting that the photographer agreeing that NWS's Pueblo office (and maybe the NWS more generally) could use the photo this way does not mean that they are licensing anybody else to use it the same way. --Rlandmann (talk) 20:03, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Dr Mario logo.png

Above threshold of originality with some 3D elements in pixels. The way of Changpian (talk) 10:08, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:B XI B 18.23 001.jpg

perchè il titolo è errato e andrà modificato anche il file, da caricare in formato pdf IlariaCatanzaro (talk) 10:10, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Condivido la richiesta di cancellazione. Il documento sarà sostituito integralmente Lanfrancotti Ermindo (talk) 10:27, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Twin tornadoes in Illinois on July 12, 2023.jpg

This photograph was taken by Bob Waszak in the United States in 2023. He published it on his X feed,[15] and in the comments that follow, we can see the license terms that he agreed to with the NWS:

@NWSChicago: Hi Bob! Thanks for the reports and photos. Would we be able to feature this image on a post-event webpage with appropriate attribution? Thanks!

@nilwxreports: absolutely, everything is free for you to use. Thanks!

This is a rare case where we can see exactly what the photographer agreed to, and it wasn't putting the image in the public domain.

This image was uploaded to Commons on the basis that it was the work of a US federal government employee performing their duties, but no evidence was provided for this. There is no claim that this image is ineligible for copyright for any other reason.

As a photo taken in the United States after 1989, copyright came into being as soon as it was made.

The uploader later revised the rationale to keep the image under the rationales expressed in the {{PD-NWS}} template at the time; that

when the weather.gov general disclaimer says that material not in the public domain will be specifically noted, it means that it must be published with a formal copyright notice. Whereas in reality, not only has the NWS never promised any specific form of notation, there is ample evidence to demonstrate this is not their general practice. This belief also chooses to ignore the words elsewhere in the disclaimer that state that third party images are used by the NWS under license, and to contact the third-party creators for re-use.
the words of a NWS Sioux City regional office policy that placed some public submissions in the public domain somehow applied to this image, although there is nothing to connect it with that office. (The photo was published by the Chicago office).

Without clearer evidence that Waszak intended to place this photo in the public domain, we need to delete this under COM:PRP. Rlandmann (talk) 10:32, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep — The image is found on this webpage of the National Weather Service.

Per the disclaimer linked at the bottom on the webpage, "The information on National Weather Service (NWS) Web pages are in the public domain, unless specifically noted otherwise, and may be used without charge for any lawful purpose...The information on National Weather Service Web servers and Web sites is in the public domain, unless specifically annotated otherwise, and may be used freely by the public."
On the Commons, the NWS disclaimer may be enough to keep the file. A recently closed deletion request for a file under the PD-NWS template was closed as keep with the main keep rational being the NWS general disclaimer.
In addition to the disclaimer, the bottom of the NWS webpage also states, “ Media use of NWS Web News Stories is encouraged! Please acknowledge the NWS as the source of any news information accessed from this site.”

Based on the NWS disclaimers and the recently closed DR I believe it should be kept. WeatherWriter (talk) 11:30, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per @Rlandmann. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 18:42, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Plus @WeatherWriter that DR was reopened. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 18:10, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Iloilo Capitol by User:Patrickroque01 (talk · contribs)

See Commons:Deletion requests/File:New Iloilo Prov Capitol.JPG, same reason. Local copies of images now restored (see this local undeletion request). These were apparently transferred to Commons by Merd123 (talk · contribs) (this and this) without thorough review of both the authorship and date of the architectural work and of the current status/version of the Philippine copyright law (which does not permit Freedom of Panorama or commercial exploitations of public art and architecture of the Philippines still under their designers' copyrights or posthumous copyrights). These can be undeleted if ever the Philippine legislature introduces FoP provision.

JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 11:49, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Thomas Cornelus Mister France.jpg

This picture is from a private source Danhay34 (talk) 10:23, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A search on Tineye and Google Lens doesn't reveal any usage before our upload here. We need more of an explanation than a single sentence claiming this is from a "private source." From Hill To Shore (talk) 23:57, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: per From Hill to Shore. --Abzeronow (talk) 20:04, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Thomas Cornelus Mister France.jpg

The public release of this photo is disputed by the subject (ticket on info-fr file #2024042410010187). The file is used nowhere in Wikimedia project => useless for us JohnNewton8 (talk) 11:52, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your second sentence is not a deletion reason. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:59, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep photo is licensed properly and within scope. Dmartin969 (talk) 07:47, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Sir/Madam, This message serves as a formal request for the deletion of a photograph currently hosted on Wikimedia Commons. The grounds for this request are as follows: Contested Public Figure Status: The data subject's role in public life as Mister France was limited. This brief experience does not warrant a lasting classification as a "public figure". This is corroborated by the rejection of the biography associated with the photograph on similar grounds. Private Context of the Photograph: The photograph was taken in a private establishment in 2020, which calls into question its public interest. Obsolescence of Information: More than four years have elapsed since the initial publication of this photograph, rendering the information obsolete and irrelevant to current public interest. Right to Erasure (Article 17 of GDPR): The data subject invokes the right to erasure, asserting that the data is no longer necessary in relation to the purposes for which it was initially collected or processed. Notification: The data subject requests to be informed of the actions taken in response to this request, as per Article 12.3 of the GDPR, within one month of receipt of this request. In the absence of a satisfactory response within the stipulated timeframe, the data subject reserves the right to lodge a complaint with the competent supervisory authority to assert their rights. The data subject remains available to provide any additional information necessary for processing this request. We look forward to your prompt response and thank you for your attention to this matter. Yours sincerely, Danhay34 (talk) 15:24, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Info COM:NPLT Dmartin969 (talk) 07:47, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Galaxy Racer GXR.png

Possibly above COM:TOO United Arab Emirates which doesn't exist. Jonteemil (talk) 12:21, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:New Project 540x.webp

user is promoting masks (see other upload) and this is "original research" I think. -- Deadstar (msg) 12:51, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Isabel-Perello.jpg

The user is not the author of the image nor does the image have free copyright TheRichic (talk) 12:55, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files uploaded by Aarepilv (talk · contribs)

Not own work. VRT-permission from the creator/photographer or rights holder is needed.

Estopedist1 (talk) 13:04, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Files uploaded by Aarepilv (talk · contribs)

book covers. VRT-permission from the creator (illustrator) or rights holder is needed.

Estopedist1 (talk) 13:06, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 18:06, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:SKIN THE PEELER.jpg

1994 photo, not 2024 own work, needs VRT to keep Gbawden (talk) 14:23, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

With reference to your deletion request. I am in the process of writing an article regarding the musical band Skin the Peeler, which were current in the 80's and 90's. (at present the article is in the Sandbox stage) I am the owner of this image which was taken in 1994. It is part of my collection. Ceri Aber (talk) 19:09, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please can you follow the process at COM:VRT Gbawden (talk) 05:59, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Michiru Yamane at house.jpg

No real proof of free-use given. The image is taken from her YouTube account. Dissident93 (talk) 14:36, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Dr Mohammad Esfahni (56).jpg

Check Lens (ver su propia página de internet) pf. 200.39.139.7 15:39, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

{{self|cc-zero}} Moh14 (talk) 21:07, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Amen break notation.svg

This file was initially tagged by MIDI as fair use and the most recent rationale was: Transcription of a copyrighted composition. Propose re-upload to appropriate projects with (for example) Wikipedia:Template:Non-free sheet music Quick1984 (talk) 15:46, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:منتزه مدينة المحمدية - Mohammedia City Park.jpg

Watermark, You have uploaded a correct copy. Mounir Neddi (talk) 16:06, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Memorial plaque mentioning return of Swami Vivekananda at Old Budge Budge railway station.jpg

The text could be copyrighted. Sreejith K (talk) 16:53, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Looks like the text is in Bangla and this is a rough translation as per Google. Pujyapad Swami Vivekananda, the returnee of the Chicago Dharma Conference, set out for Calcutta on February 19, 1897, from Bajabaj railway station. In his memory in the presence of Shri Hrishikesh Banerjee, General Manager of Eastern Railway. Swami Lokeswarananda, Vice-Chancellor, Ramakrishna Mission Institute of Culture Golpark, Calcutta. laid the foundation stone of this memorial. Established by the Vivekananda Memorial Committee at the initiative of Shri Ganesh Ghosh Vice Chairman, Bajaj Municipality. 19th February 1986 --Sreejith K (talk) 14:38, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Maumoon Abdul Gayyoom presidential portrait.jpg

None of the criteria in the stated licence seem to apply Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:53, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Extraembryonic tissues during amniote development.jpg

This file was initially tagged by AntiCompositeBot as no license (User:AntiCompositeBot/NoLicense/tag) Rasbak (talk) 20:55, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In front of the article https://www.researchgate.net/publication/232228093_Diversification_and_conservation_of_the_extraembryonic_tissues_in_mediating_nutrient_uptake_during_amniote_development you will find: License CC-BY 2.5.Rasbak (talk) 21:02, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Михаил Гаврилович Тартаковский.png

Фотография человека, умершего в 1935 году, не может быть собственной работой 2024 года. Jim Hokins (talk) 21:56, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Argentine youth team photos

Out of scope. Neither notable team nor players. Not in use in any article as well.

Files affected:

Fma12 (talk) 22:44, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Obra de Arte-PepinoComCostoletaDePorco&FransecinhaSemMolho.jpg

Carregado por engano. 186.172.107.117 23:21, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

September 4

File:AliSadpara.jpg

This file was initially tagged by Sahaib as no permission (No permission) Krd 03:32, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Imran Junaidi.jpg

This file was initially tagged by Sahaib as no permission (No permission) Krd 03:32, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Aleksei Vyzhanov.jpg

uploaded as own work, but image appears eg. here https://inplaymusicschool.com/aleksei-vyzhanov/ DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:54, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:SubteB - Dorrego-Bacher (Mural).jpg

No FoP for 2D works in Argentina A1Cafel (talk) 06:04, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! This was discussed already several times..there are works commissioned by the city government and they release them in CC. Cheers! Mauricio V. Genta (talk) 17:07, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The license only applies to photo itself, not the artwork. --A1Cafel (talk) 04:18, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

They do in these cases, because the own the artwork. We got this confirmed with VTRS and the head of communications of the goverment in the past. Mauricio V. Genta (talk) 13:30, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Which ticket? --Krd 10:50, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Batik.webp

Unclear copyright status Fenikals (talk) 10:39, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Flag map of Japanese Empire Full Version.png

The flag is incorrect, The Empire of Japan uses the Hinomaru flag as it does today but it only became Japan’s national flag back in 1999. The army ensign should not be used as the flag of The Empire of Japan. The army flag is the Army ensign: NOT THE NATIONAL FLAG. RepublicOfKorea1945 (talk) 11:03, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've added an accuracy disputed tag. Nakonana (talk) 19:50, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Braunschweig Brunswick Magni-Kirche Innenbogen (2006).JPG

bad quality, image motif available several times in good quality. MeAmME (talk) 12:31, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also not in use. MeAmME (talk) 11:31, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:High altar of the Magnikirche in Braunschweig contains three pictures of the same motif in better quality. MeAmME (talk) 11:41, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Rodrigo Riquelme podpis.png

Possible copyright infringement Zlanek (talk) 12:54, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Julen Agirrezabala signature.png

Possible copyright infringement Zlanek (talk) 12:59, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Jaden Philogene signature.png

Possible copyright infringement Zlanek (talk) 13:00, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Semnatura lui Alecu.jpg

Personal photo without educational value Fenikals (talk) 13:10, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files in Category:Pasión de Multitudes exhibition

Derivate works. I doubt the Flickr account owns the copyright of the original works.

Yann (talk) 13:25, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Claudio Vivas - 2020.jpg

Source channel looks like a random YouTube channel, which uploads random videos. But the video copyright holder is Bolivar TV, maybe this YouTube channel is the main copyright holder, where I can't see any cc license in any of their videos. –TANBIRUZZAMAN (💬) 13:28, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Republica (banda).jpg

Unclear copyright status Fenikals (talk) 13:34, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Commandos marine tunisiens et United States Marine Corps Force Reconnaissance lors d'un exercice conjoint en 2022.jpg

This file was initially tagged by Moumou82 as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: found on https://tineye.com/search/02d3cb37165e7f95761e9694474392ba1e5e79a5?sort=size&order=desc&page=1 Yann (talk) 13:44, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Andrei tarkovsky stamp russia 2007 (cropped).jpg

Stamps in Russia are exempt from copyright only in its entirety. When those are cropped, they become covered by copyright protection. For example, see Commons:Deletion requests/File:Oleg Dahl Postal card Russia 2016cr.jpg. 92.243.182.19 14:32, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:San Francisco,Lempira 1.JPG

copyrighted material, unfree license 2A01:C23:B997:A800:3933:AF2A:8569:63E9 14:54, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - File was requested for a rename, but the reason was not good. So now I also see it is possibly copyrighted.. I say: delete. The user just reverted all my declines.. Should be blocked, but I'm not gonna do that. - Inertia6084 (talk) (talk) 17:22, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Man reading a book in his office (25840556051).jpg

This file was initially tagged by DragonflySixtyseven as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: per Commons:Deletion requests/File:Dog faces off with an angry opossum - Flickr - simpleinsomnia.jpg , images attributed to the SimpleInsomnia flickr account have no provenance and their copyright status cannot be ascertained Юрий Д.К 14:56, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is a calendar on the picture. Year not visible but it has been taken in September or November with 24th belongs to Sunday. Maybe someone can clarify of date of creation. If not then delete. Юрий Д.К 15:58, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Man playing with a football in a field (12624032395).jpg

This file was initially tagged by DragonflySixtyseven as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: Per Commons:Deletion requests/File:Dog faces off with an angry opossum - Flickr - simpleinsomnia.jpg Yann (talk) 15:44, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1945 picture could be in the public domain. Yann (talk) 15:45, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Per the previous DR, nothing from the SimpleInsomnia Flickr account has provenance. It's all "found photos", which might as well be "unidentified photo albums that I bought for $5 on eBay". Even if it's from 1945, what else do we know about it? DS (talk) 12:27, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The image is not signed, and it is scanned from a print, so the publication started when leaving the photographer's custody. Yann (talk) 13:00, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:HaWUG swot analysis.png

Uploaded a new version of it. HaWUG swot analysis1.jpg Em-mustapha (talk) 15:48, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Smithsonian map göbekli tepe.jpg

Map with a dubious US Gov license (description even notes a Smithsonian Institute copyright). Abzeronow (talk) 17:36, 4 September 2024 (UTC

Keep Smithsonian Institution is an independent trust instrumentality of the United States Government and as such, its material are treated as PD-USGov. You can read more about its status at https://www.usa.gov/agencies/smithsonian-institution Bastique ^{☎ appelez-moi!} 21:29, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the Smithsonian is a public-private partnership, but they are not covered under PD-USGov. Smithsonian terms of use: https://www.si.edu/termsofuse "All other Content is subject to usage conditions due to copyright and/or other restrictions and may only be used for personal, educational, and other non-commercial uses consistent with the principles of fair use under Section 108 of the U.S. Copyright Act. All rights not expressly granted herein by the Smithsonian are reserved, unless the Content is marked with the CC0 icon." Abzeronow (talk) 21:40, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Given the nature of the image, I've no doubt it would have been released to the Public Domain. However, looking at the problems with the original user en:User_talk:Heliogabulus User_talk:Heliogabulus, I believe the user assumed the same and uploaded it without verification. Since the image is on so many wikis, it ought to be either remade under a free license or the Smithsonian Institution needs to be contacted. Either I wonder if anyone has time for given that it took 15 years for this file to be verified. Bastique ^{☎ appelez-moi!} 22:51, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In other words, it's exactly the type of thing that Smithsonian would release into the public domain. In looking at Gobekli Tepe: The World’s First Temple? | History | Smithsonian (archive.org) it's the only image whose credit doesn't have a copyright symbol. Bastique ^{☎ appelez-moi!} 23:01, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- having been involved in Smithsonian partnerships for most of the last 15 years: the magazine and the television channel typically aren't covered by the Open Access policy unless its been republished elsewhere with clearly labeling as covered by the policy: the policy typically only covers directly commissioned research and the collections, Sadads (talk) 00:43, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Dr Cord Bruegmann-2-1-1446x1536.jpg

Offensichtliche Fehllizenzierung: Als Urheber wird die Stiftung Forum Recht angegeben, das ist aber nicht möglich, da Urheber immer nur eine natürliche Person , nicht aber eine Organisation sein kann

Obvious mislicensing: The Stiftung Forum Recht is stated as the author, but this is not possible, as the author can only ever be a natural person, not an organisation Lutheraner (talk) 23:06, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

September 5

File:Alaska tornado in 2024.jpg

This image of an event that happened on April 19, 2024 was published on the @NWSAnchoraage X stream with the attribution "Credit to Geremy Clarion who captured these pictures"[16]

There is no claim that he was acting as an employee of the US federal government, or that the photo was ineligible for copyright for any other reason. Therefore, as a photo taken in the United States after 1989, copyright existed from the moment it was taken.

The attribution does not claim or imply that the photographer transferred his rights into the public domain or published this image under a free license.

This image has been uploaded to Commons based on a rationale that it is covered by the site disclaimer for weather.gov and/or the submission guidelines for the Sioux City NWS office.

This file is not hosted on weather.gov, so the disclaimer for that site does not appear to apply, and there is no evidence to connect it with the Sioux City office image submission guidelines, so this rationale does not appear to apply either. Rlandmann (talk) 04:00, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Conditional Delete – I would recommend someone try to contact the person who took the picture. Especially since it is used on the w:List of Alaska tornadoes En-wiki page. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 20:26, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep? — Hey @Rlandmann: and Hurricane Clyde, this image has been uploaded to the Commons multiple times (under different licenses): File:EF0 tornado Rusty Point, AK 2024 (1).jpg, File:EF0 tornado Rusty Point, AK 2024 (2).jpg, File:EF0 tornado Rusty Point, AK 2024 (3).jpg, so some administrative merges MAY need to happen (Continue reading this before merging stuff). However, ChessEric discovered the first-ever actual photo of a tornado on the DAT…this one. URL for the DAT. I confirmed it is on the DAT still. The DAT caption only says, “Weak landspout observed near Rusty Point.”, no attribution or anything. Since it is on the DAT, this should be a kept photo? I can also confirm the DAT has not one, but three photos of the tornado listed for that specific “survey” point: 1 2 3. Since it is 3 different photos, maybe no merge needs to happen? I am not sure really at all, but it is confirmed to be on the DAT, so {{PD-DAT}} should apply? Maybe? WeatherWriter (talk) 18:22, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per @WeatherWriter, DAT images are public domain. Striking out my previous comment. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 18:24, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks WeatherWriter! This definitely needs a closer look. The most basic question to resolve is: are these all really the same image? --Rlandmann (talk) 22:49, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think so. I believe this DR image (the "(0)" image), is the same as the "(3)" image. Image "(1)" and "(2)" look to be more and more zoomed in than "(3)/(0)". That said, the actual tornado looks slightly different in each of the 3 photo zooms. Metadata is also different for each photo (specifically shutter speed/zoom and other things). The time stamps are the same minute though. Based on that, I think the photos are just taken within seconds of each other, but still different actual photos, not the same one. So this image (calling it "(0)" to separate them even though it doesn't have a "(#)") is the same as "(3)", so those need merging together. But "(1)" and "(2)" are different. WeatherWriter (talk) 23:32, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Question, then, with obviously major implications... is it even possible that a photo not taken by an NWS/NOAA employee might have made its way into the DAT?

I've reached out to someone in the right place with the right name to be the photographer credited by the NWS, to see what they have to say about it. But have we ever seen such a thing before? --Rlandmann (talk) 12:18, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've not. The DAT is used for NWS-based damage photos. This is also the first non-damage photo I know of on the DAT. If for some reason, it isn't an NWS employee photo, then I would chop that up to the Alaskan office using it differently than every-other NWS office, since that's the fifth Alaskan tornado ever recorded (last one before this year was in 2005, well before the DAT records stuff). From what I know of: It is the first photo of a tornado on the DAT. Also...I checked from January 1, 2013 to present day...that's the first "damage point" on the DAT in Alaska, and subsequently the first in NWS Anchorage's area. So, if it isn't an NWS employee photo, this would 100% be a one-off instance of an Alaskan office who never uses the DAT, using it one time. WeatherWriter (talk) 13:11, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks; that makes perfect sense to me. To be explicit about my thinking; even if we do find this to be a non-NWS and non-free image, I don't think it automatically calls into question everything else we've sourced to the DAT so far. As I've said in different contexts, given the sheer volume of images, individuals, and timescales involved, 100% consistency would be astonishing. There are bound to be weird anomalies, and this could very well be one! --Rlandmann (talk) 13:18, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And I assume @Rlandmann that this would still be a perfect candidate for NFF on En-Wiki. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 16:07, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it would, but for this image, that should not influence any !votes here, as that is EN-Wiki and this is the Commons, a separate project. WeatherWriter (talk) 16:20, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The vast majority (if not all) the images we're talking about would be candidates, including this one. However, as WeatherWriter points out, in this particular instance, we seem to have multiple very similar images of this tornado. If it's found to be unfree, then NFF could only justify using one of them. (Not that I think anyone would mind, just noting the technicality in the hope it might better illustrate how NFF operates). --Rlandmann (talk) 00:12, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Closing admins should familiarise themselves with the evidence and discussions at this RfC when closing this request.

File:Трейл-кросс памяти Янышенко Б.В. и Онучина М.Н.jpg

No FoP for 2D works in Crimea A1Cafel (talk) 04:11, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bottom of the source website says "Все материалы сайта доступны по лицензии: Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International". The 2D work mentioned above can be found in this article of said source website: https://simfmo.rk.gov.ru/articles/9afe3f1f-2a7a-43fd-9034-9af1b08dae22 Nakonana (talk) 22:00, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Данные соревнования по бегу проводятся структурой Министерства спорта Крыма, фото выполнено пресслужбой Министерства спорта Крыма и размещено на его сайте. Рекламный передвижной банер размещен в лесу на месте финиша и также выполнен и принадлежит структуре Министерства спорта Крыма. На все материалы сайта министерства лицензия CC BY 4.0

These running competitions are held by the structure of the Ministry of Sports of Crimea, the photo was taken by the press service of the Ministry of Sports of Crimea and posted on its website. The advertising mobile banner is located in the forest at the finish line and is also made and belongs to the structure of the Ministry of Sports of Crimea. All materials on the website of the ministry are licensed CC BY 4.0 --Трифонов Андрей (talk) 04:30, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:中華民國教育部新版部徽.png

這是一個錯誤的部徽且詆毀公家機關形象，並會造成其他使用者於網路搜尋時誤用，請刪除他。 A931404 (talk) 06:14, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what this means or whether it's a deletion reason (Google translation): "This is a wrong emblem that denigrates the image of public agencies and may cause other users to misuse it when searching online. Please delete it." However, if this is under copyright, it wouldn't be a textlogo and should be deleted for that reason. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:23, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:This piece was so much different than everything else (8437745538).jpg

painting by Pablo Picasso. Not in public domain as Picasso died less than 70 years ago Zen 38 (talk) 06:53, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:صورة ملك الصواف في الملعب.jpg

Personal photo: out of the scope of the project Michel Bakni (talk) 07:05, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Appears to have more than a million followers on Instagram and TikTok [17][18]. Also claims to be a professional Syrian soccer player. And something about an invitation to the Miss Lebanon stage[19]. But the uploader appears also to be the depicted subject, so questionable license and likely promotional aim. Nakonana (talk) 23:19, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Flag of Mecca.svg

Ygguhgyugg Strmare (talk) 15:15, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: Nonsense DR closed, no valid reason for deletion provided. I've opened a new deletion request at Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Flags of municipalities of Saudi Arabia. --AFBorchert (talk) 16:28, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Flag of Mecca.svg

There is no government source that specifies this flag as the flag of the Municipality of Mecca. According to w:WP:FOTW, FlagsOfTheWorld is an unreliable source. Howardcorn33 (talk) 07:56, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

After some research i have found that a correct flag of Mecca, which is here: Strenatos (talk) 04:10, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

COM:INUSE. If you're sure you know what the correct flag is, you should try to substitute it for all the uses of this file before nominating a file in use for deletion. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:26, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"FlagsOfTheWorld is an unreliable source" FOTW has been used on wikipedia for most of it's life as a source and it's sources are more reliable than what is found mostly online as it's researched by vexillologists, in fact most flag pages here on wikipedia have a bunch of misinformation, WP:FOTW is stupid because wikimedia allows fictional junk flags on here and they get used meanwhile FOTW usually points out when a flag is dubious.

Anyways, The flag is real and Strenatos has confirmed that. BlinxTheKitty (talk) 18:41, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Calcutta Nostalia painting done by me.jpg

This file was initially tagged by Wikishovel as Copyvio (copyright) and the most recent rationale was: non-free image copied from https://www.saatchiart.com/en-gb/art/Painting-Calcutta-Nostalgia-Avanish-s-Calcutta/1061906/8123836/view
Converted to regular DR to allow for discussion. External source credits this painting to Avanish Trivedi, which resembles the username of the uploader. So, he/she might indeed be the painter. -- Túrelio (talk) 08:30, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Flag of the Soviet Union (1955-1991).svg

This flag already exists. Adinar0012 (talk) 09:21, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Flag of the Soviet Union (1955–1991).svg

This flag already exists. Adinar0012 (talk) 09:21, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Splatoon 3.svg

This file was initially tagged by Kirilloparma as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: Non-trivial logo Yann (talk) 11:18, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I uploaded this logo to match old SVG Splatoon logos such as the Splatoon and Splatoon 2 ones.

I consider this SVG as complex as the Splatoon 2 logo (I believe it's actually derivated from it since the Splatoon shape is really similar if not identical) and therefore I would like it to not be deleted as I don't think it is an infringement of copyright since it is a simplified version of Splatoon 3's official logo and it is not complex enough to be copyrighted, or at least is as much complex as the old logos which are marked as non complex enough.

Additionally I don't think it surpasses the threshold of originality as it is equally if not less complex than other logos that have been determined not copyrightable by law agents, such as the Cyberpunk 2077 logo which has two colors instead of one and is overall more complex in my opinion (it has a much larger SVG file size as well), which was denied copyright registration by the Review Board of the U.S. Copyright Office for not being complex enough.

Ultimately, if it gets deleted for being too complex, I think the Splatoon and Splatoon 2 ones should be deleted under the same criteria. Wmyttmlimvty (talk) 12:09, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Melania Dalla Costa - (2024).jpg

This file was initially tagged by AntiCompositeBot as no license (User:AntiCompositeBot/NoLicense/tag) Yann (talk) 11:19, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Bharatiya Janata Party logo.svg

complex logo at the threshold of the complexity allowed here. Discussion is required to determine whether we may hold it. 🇺🇦 Timtrent 🇺🇦 talk to me 🇺🇦 11:47, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Simple logo of a lotus. --Sreejith K (talk) 16:15, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per rational, appears to be the symbol of the party in India, with a creator and you would need some type of legal rational for party symbols in India to be fair use, or explicit policy by the copyright owner (who is likely an individual on contract with the party). Sadads (talk) 21:52, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

note to admin, image is widely used across many wikis Sadads (talk) 21:52, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fire Agate

This is not a gallery page: with only one photo. In my opinion a gallery page has a lot of images and the purpose is "to present readers with a structured and meaningful collection of the media found here on Wikimedia Commons" (see Commons:Galleries). This gallery page does not meet these criteria. JopkeB (talk) 12:28, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

St. Elmo's Fire

This is not a gallery page: with only one photo. In my opinion a gallery page has a lot of images and the purpose is "to present readers with a structured and meaningful collection of the media found here on Wikimedia Commons" (see Commons:Galleries). This gallery page does not meet these criteria. JopkeB (talk) 12:33, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files uploaded by Ženg (talk · contribs)

Inconsistent PD rationale. You can't state the author is died over 70 year ago if you don't know who the author is. The country of origin must be determined in each case to check whether these are PD.

Quick1984 (talk) 12:58, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

- Copyright Law Section 37.

(2) Copyright to a work that has legally become available to the public anonymously or under a pseudonym shall be in effect for 70 years from the time when it has legally become available to the public. If during the time referred to the author of a work whose work has legally become available to the public anonymously or under a pseudonym reveals his or her identity, or if there is no doubt about the identity, Section 36, Paragraph one of this Law shall apply.--Ženg (talk) 07:49, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Hatikva vocal.ogg

Delete - Clearly a copyvio Wheatley2 (talk) 19:10, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Do not delete. 2A02:587:3219:D81B:406F:BE9D:274B:6EA5 15:42, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:SHAMSUDHEEN PUTHIYAVEETTIL 215.png

The picture was taken in 1954, but the owner's name and country of origin are unknown. It is feared that the file is not yet included in the "public domain" license. Astrinko (talk) 14:07, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Franck fernandel marseille 1972 archives privées libre de droits.jpg

This file was initially tagged by VFP75 as Speedy (SD) and the most recent rationale was: G7
Converted to regular DR, as file does not qualify for G7-speedy and is externally used (https://www.libramemoria.com/deces-celebres/2011/06/08/frank-fernandel-le-fils-de-l-acteur-marseillais-fernandel-est-decede). -- Túrelio (talk) 14:11, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Svobodné noviny - 23.5.1945 - volume 1, issue 1.jpg

Newspaper from 1945. Authors of some texts died after 1953 -> unfree texts. Harold (talk) 14:19, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Nová svoboda" by Eduard Bass - en:Eduard Bass died in 1946 -> ok
"Naše úkoly a cesty" by Hubert Ripka - en:Hubert Ripka died in 1958 -> not ok
"Rudý prapor nad Berlínem" by TASS - an anonymous translation of an article by Soviet news agency en:TASS -> not sure
"Labouristé žádají volby" - an article by Czechoslovak news agency en:ČTK -> not sure
"Hroby na Rokosce" poem by Vladimír Thiele -> cs:Vladimír Thiele died in 1997 -> not ok
"Lidice" by Ladislav Matějky -> en:Ladislav Matějka died in 2012 -> not ok

--Harold (talk) 14:25, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Maravijaya Buddha Image.jpg

Per the 2019 Copyright Act, there is no more freedom of panorama in Myanmar. Ninja✮Strikers ^«☎» 18:26, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:THE WRATH OF KHAN.png

Appeal for speedy deletion: The file File:THE WRATH OF KHAN.png is a colored text on a black background that I made in Photoshop. It's basically a copy of the old German version of Star trek 2 de.svg that had the Wikidata file before mine and that was used in almost all other versions of Wikipedia. It cannot infringe any copyright because, as the license indicates, it is a simple text on a black background, like the thousands of movie production logos on Commons. The user who requested the prompt deletion of this and other similar files "because it is a logo" has uploaded several similar negative versions, such as File:Star trek the motion picture logo black.png as logos too. Geom (talk) 20:29, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The star background and the light can be above TOO. Grandmaster Huon (talk) 21:03, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Star trek 2 de.svg has no complex backgrounds. Grandmaster Huon (talk) 21:03, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Deutsches Museum (10799260195).jpg

Copyrighted content within the freely licensed one. Brunnaiz (talk) 20:55, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Lies of P Logo Vector.svg

may be above COM:TOO South Korea Grandmaster Huon (talk) 22:03, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

September 6

Files in Category:Emblem of Goteijūsantai divisions

These might be borderline TOO.

Grandmaster Huon (talk) 01:21, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files in Category:Emblem of Goteijūsantai divisions

original speedy as copyright violation but seems to be a more complex case

GPSLeo (talk) 12:52, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@GPSLeo: they are complex images of flowers. Grandmaster Huon (talk) 14:28, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

With complex I meant what is the original source? As they are labeled as own works. GPSLeo (talk) 14:39, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The original source is the Bleach Manga by Tite Kubo. Grandmaster Huon (talk) 17:17, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thus they merit artistic value per COM:TOO Japan. Grandmaster Huon (talk) 14:45, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Niles Park Plaza 1985 tornado.jpg

This file is different from other third-party images hosted on NWS servers that are the subjects of recent DRs. In this case, the source is explicitly given on the NWS page as "Unless otherwise noted, pictures courtesy ODOT District 4."

The Ohio Department of Transportation copyright policy states:

"Many, but not all, of the products and material the Ohio Department of Transportation produces are public records and are open for non-commercial reuse or duplication. Some items, such as the Official Transportation Map, are fully copyrighted, and reuse is expressly restricted.

Reuse of any and all material for commercial purposes is generally prohibited. Waivers to reuse material for educational purposes, and/or by non-profit or other governmental entities will be considered on a case-by-case basis depending on the source material and intended reuse. Accreditation to ODOT for appropriated material is requested." (emphasis mine)

Since we don't accept ,materials with non-commercial restrictions, we can't keep this. Rlandmann (talk) 09:39, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. WestVirginiaWX (talk) 21:34, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above - with the obvious caveat that ODOT may be willing to release this image into public domain and any editor is free (as always) to ask them to do so. But as of now, no evidence this is sufficiently licensed for Commons. Berchanhimez (talk) 23:42, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Per the disclaimer linked at the bottom on the webpage, "The information on National Weather Service (NWS) Web pages are in the public domain, unless specifically noted otherwise, and may be used without charge for any lawful purpose...The information on National Weather Service Web servers and Web sites is in the public domain, unless specifically annotated otherwise, and may be used freely by the public." Given this disclaimer, several reliable source media outlets use the photograph under a public domain license, even citing NWS or NOAA as the source for the image including: The Philadelphia Inquirer, Cleveland, US Tornadoes, and funny enough, the Ohio State Government uses the photo, citing the source as NWS. If the Ohio State government is using the photograph & says NWS is the source, it is public domain. WeatherWriter (talk) 23:50, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The fact others have violated its copyright does not mean we can do that. Commons does not rely on "implicit" evidence of copyright status as you want them to do. Berchanhimez (talk) 23:55, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I will give you a chance to strike and amend your statement, given you have put words in my mouth. Please strike/amend your statement to not attack me by putting words in my mouth. WeatherWriter (talk) 00:01, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say you said anything. You are using implicit evidence (such as other sources using the photo) - that is not acceptable on Commons as proof of copyright status. The mere fact other sources have also violated copyright does not mean we do on Commons. It is not an attack to point out that your statement was based solely on implicit evidence, which is not sufficient. Berchanhimez (talk) 00:09, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that The Philadelphia Inquirer, Cleveland.com, US Tornadoes,(not a reliable source, but anyway...) and the Ohio State Government incorrectly attribute the image to the NWS should tell us something about the perils of relying on such third-party attributions. If, as you claim, the image was in the public domain, then the correct attribution should be "Public domain", and perhaps the ODOT as a courtesy. If, as I claim, the image is not in the public domain, then the attribution should be "ODOT" or "ODOT via NWS". But either way, "NWS" is demonstrably and obviously wrong and only exemplifies the unreliability of this approach to evaluating the copyright and licensing status of any of these images. --Rlandmann (talk) 00:55, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And plus; those newspapers could have gotten express permission from ODOT. Using that as a rationale would majorly go against the precautionary principle. That amounts to an “I can get away with it because it’s ‘common property’ and found all over the internet” argument. WestVirginiaWX (talk) 18:35, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And furthermore @WeatherWriter, ODOT is owned by the Ohio state government. You can’t infringe on your own copyright. WestVirginiaWX (talk) 18:37, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Clearly we’ve got contradictory statements. Either the federal government is wrong or the state of Ohio is wrong. I think the latter is because it is east to confuse stuff on NWS servers for NWS created stuff (and misrepresent the NWS as the owner rather than ODOT); it clearly underscores the danger of such assumptions. WestVirginiaWX (talk) 18:40, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WeatherWriter. ChessEric (talk) 06:21, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: per WeatherWriter Hoguert (talk) 11:24, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: per discussion. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 02:50, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Niles Park Plaza 1985 tornado.jpg

Renominating. I closed a previous listing for this thinking it was resolved, which seems to have been mistaken. [20]. Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 01:59, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Closing admins should familiarise themselves with the evidence and discussions at this RfC when closing this request.

Keep For the following reasons:

The image originates from this web site by the National Weather Service (NWS). The NWS noted the photo was, "courtesy ODOT District 4". Per the disclaimer linked at the bottom on the webpage, "The information on National Weather Service Web servers and Web sites is in the public domain, unless specifically annotated otherwise, and may be used freely by the public." We have confirmed evidence this image exists on a web site as well as the web servers of the National Weather Service (weather.gov).
For the clause of “specifically annotated otherwise”, NWS either allows the user to add a copyright “©” watermark to the image {as seen in this image, hosted on this NWS webpage} or by directly adding a copyright statement using “©” {as seen on this NWS webpage: difference between the “Tornado Photos” and “Damage” tabs}. That disclaimer is linked at the bottom of all three of the NWS webpages linked above (this image’s webpage + 2 I used as examples). To me, “specifically annotated otherwise” indicates a direct copyright (©) statement or watermark.
The NWS disclaimer also states, "Third-party information and imagery are used under license by the individual third-party provider. [...] Please contact the third-party provider for information on your rights to further use these data/products." See instances of usage below:

The Philadelphia Inquirer used the photo in this article, where it is attributed "National Weather Service".
The Plain Dealer (under Cleveland.com) used the photo in this article, where it is attributed "National Weather Service".
USTornadoes used the photo in this article, where it is attributed "NWS Cleveland, Ohio".
The Ohio State Government (note, the NWS-claimed photographer is a branch of this organization) used the photo in this official publication, where it is attributed "Source - NWS".

To me, all the things above, along with the previous deletion request being closed as "Keep", point to this image being in the public domain. Arguments for possible deletion would have to argue RS media, with editorial reviews, along with the direct Ohio State Government, failed to actually follow the disclaimer and illegally "license laundered". If clear evidence of the aforementioned was presented, then my vote would switch to delete. However, I highly doubt RS media along with a state government would fail to follow the disclaimer in its entirety, which helps provide evidence that this photo is free-to-use. WeatherWriter (talk) 02:40, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete For the following reasons:

Is not under dispute
The idea that "specifically annotated otherwise" necessarily means a formal copyright notice is simply a fabrication, made up out of thin air by some commons contributors years ago. The NWS themselves have never made any such claim, and their actual practice is quite different from the "rules" that a few Commons constributors invented for them.
The third-party provider in this case is the Ohio Department of Transportation. Per COM:ONUS, anyone wishing to keep this file should reach out to them and see if the image was ever released into the Public Domain or under a free license, or whether they would be willing to make such a release now. Without the explicit permission of the owner, it really doesn't matter what any fourth party has to say about the copyright or licensing.
I don't think it's fair to use the closing admin's decision the way you are using it here; it was made on the basis of a different and far more limited set of information than we have available to us now.

Works of the state Government of Ohio are generally eligible for copyright,[21] and we have no explicit evidence from either the ODOT who created the image, or the NWS who published it, that copyright was ever relinquished. Nor do we have evidence that this image was published prior to March 1, 1989 without a copyright notice or registration, which would make it ineligible for other reasons. --Rlandmann (talk) 04:20, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To throw the question out there since we should cover all basis, what is our evidence ODoT is the photographer? NWS? We have the Ohio State government and RS media saying NWS took the photo. If you are arguing we cannot trust the NWS disclaimer, then why can we trust the NWS’s authorship? Why not trust the Ohio State Government, who says the U.S. federal government is the photographer? In short: Besides NWS’s word (which the deletion request is basically whether or not “their word” can be trusted), what proof do we have that ODot took the photo? WeatherWriter (talk) 04:28, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good question!

The evidence is the NWS website, as the oldest and most independent source of this photo and its attribution, and which predates any of the other sources by at least five, maybe ten, years.
Bob publishes a photo and says he got it from Anna. Five or ten years later, Carla, Dave, Edith, and Freddy come along, republish the same photo, and say they got it from Bob. The chain of evidence/provenance still points back to Anna as the original source of the image (as far as we can tell).
We very definitely do not have anybody else (reliable or otherwise) saying that the "NWS took the photo". We have a bunch of sources saying that's where they got the photo. I don't see any of them making the claim that they got the image from the original photographer.
I have never said that "we cannot trust the NWS disclaimer". I say we cannot trust one specific interpretation of it which is grossly at odds with observeable reality and which the NWS itself disavows. I have personally reviewed over 1,500 images spread over many hundreds of NWS webpages, and can point to only a handful of times I suspect they've made a mistake in an attribution. They are extraordinarily trustworthy.
It remains possible that ODOT themselves got the image from someone else -- perhaps an EMA or private citizen. For the purposes of this DR, that's a distinction without difference, since it doesn't matter if we delete because we have no evidence that ODOT released the image into the public domain or whether we delete because we have no evidence that someone who gave it to ODOT released it into the public domain. The end result is the same.

Rlandmann (talk) 08:57, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I must take issue with the allegation against me, "The closing admin admitted that the last DR had been improperly closed by counting !votes instead of applying copyright law and Commons policy." I closed it according the information I had in front of me in the deletion request itself. I was at the time unaware of Commons:Requests for comment/Third-party images published by the National Weather Service and the listing did nothing to make me aware of the existence of such additional discussion elsewhere. As I stated on my talk page [22] "If there are other factors &/or you think my closure was wrong, I have no objection to reopening discussion." If the user has issues with me I suggest they bring it to my talk page, or if they think appropriate start a listing about me at Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems. Now if you please let's get back to discussing the copyright status of images without personal snark. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 14:36, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry Infrogmation. No snark was intended, but on a re-read, my words were indeed harsh. I've struck that comment and re-focused it on the actual rebuttal. That's my bad and I hope you can forgive me. --Rlandmann (talk) 20:00, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Image is sourced to ODOT and there is no evidence they aren't the creator of the image. It doesn't matter what you think about whether someone else would've violated the copyright intentionally or not. The bottom line is that there is more than enough doubt over its status that the precautionary principle applies. The fact that other people or organizations have not applied a precautionary principle of their own doesn't mean we can fail to do so also. The mere fact that others have failed to confirm the copyright status does not give us the right to do so. All of the arguments in the prior DR apply still and need to be considered by the eventual close of this discussion. Berchanhimez (talk) 07:30, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WeatherWriter. No idea why this was renominated. Sir MemeGod ._. (talk - contribs) 06:51, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Because since it was first listed, we know a lot more about how the weather.gov disclaimer operates in practice.

Examining third-party files on weather.gov that we know to be (or at least can be very confident to be) protected by copyright, we can observe that they are never attributed with formal copyright notices, but are generally credited "Courtesy of..." or "Photo by..." or something very similar.

We now know that the long-standing belief that "specifically annotated otherwise" necessarily means a formal copyright notice doesn't marry up with what we actually see the NWS doing on weather.gov.
There are really only two ways to reconcile the words of the disclaimer with what we see in actual practise:
1. the long-standing belief is correct, but the NWS is incredibly, consistently bad at following their own rules, to the point where they practically never get it right. If this is true, then it's impossible to rely on the style of attributions on the site to tell us whether an image is in the public domain or not. or
2. the long-standing belief is incorrect and "specifically annotated" just means attribution to a third party. If this is true, then it's impossible to rely on the style of attributions on the site to tell us whether an image is in the public domain or not.
Rlandmann (talk) 14:02, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per @Rlandmann and @Berchanhimez. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 22:50, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

More information

I emailed ODOT on September 7 about this image. I did get a reply that indicated a willingness to release the image, but when presented with the release template, they stopped responding. (VRT ticket:2024090610010381)

File:King Koroki Mahuta (17346000529).jpg

does ArchivesNZ own the copyright to this? it says its from a newspaper clipping TheLoyalOrder (talk) 07:33, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@TheLoyalOrder: I think it is {{PD-New Zealand}}, because it is a "photo taken or work published prior to 1 January 1974 (50 years ago)", as shown by the rubber stamp in the bottom right corner. I updated the date and licence in the file. Please keep. --NearEMPTiness (talk) 07:41, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

yeah but it wouldn't be PD in the United States so can't be on commons TheLoyalOrder (talk) 09:18, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Flag of Dame te Atairangikaahu.svg

is this design copyrighted? relatively recent design and i would think it is beyond TOO TheLoyalOrder (talk) 09:44, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Definitely above ToO, there was a proposal to add CSD F11 for non-notable flags, that ended with the criteria not being added, due to it falling under F10. Unless a VRT email comes through, definitely delete per precautionary principle. All the Best -- Chuck ^Talk 23:30, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Anti-Trump Rally at Trafalgar Square (42540607005).jpg

Derivative work of a copyrighted banner A1Cafel (talk) 09:51, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I suggest cropping the left 1/3d of the photo to remove the cartoon sign. The other sign looks to be ok as simple text. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 15:57, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep* I don't know what banner the sign's deriving from, but the sign is within scope. If it is a Derviative Work of a copyrighted banner, then @Infrogmation's propsal, but if @A1Cafel can't prove its a deriviatve work, then Keep unaltered. All the Best -- Chuck ^Talk 23:35, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Irancode.png

Unclear copyright status, possibly public domain (Iranian goverment work) Fenikals (talk) 10:29, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files uploaded by Azizbek Karimov (talk · contribs)

per COMːTOYS

Gbawden (talk) 10:47, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Gbawden Hi! I checked my photos again, and realized that I hadn't broken the rules. As an example, you can take a photo of a child with a Winnie the Pooh toy. It says "As virtually all photography is considered to involve at least a modicum of creativity on the part of the photographer", and my photos have a background that I made myself. I did not violate any copyrights, because these toys were bought by me, so I have the right to use them. Azizbek Karimov (talk) 11:26, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The issue isn't your photo but the object in your photo. The copyright of the toy cars belongs to Hot Wheels - please read COMːTOYS Gbawden (talk) 11:28, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Another wrinkle here is that mattel doesn't have sole copyright, as these are licensed models of cars from real automakers. All the Best -- Chuck ^Talk 23:36, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files uploaded by Mirmircze (talk · contribs)

The uploader states these 1930s and 1940s photographs as own work, althouh they are taken from the Internet and "own work" covers colorization only. They might be copyrighted, eg File:Četař František Peřina .jpg is available here via Alamy. Real sources and authors should be provided. –

Gumruch (talk) 11:53, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Funnel cloud east of Salina, Kansas April 14, 2011.jpg

This file is sourced to a National Weather Service website.

Such sites host a mixture of content created by the US federal government (public domain) and content created by businesses and private individuals (a wide variety of free and unfree licenses).

Copyright and licensing details of such third-party files is usually set out in the image captions.

Unfortunately, this image is no longer published by the NWS, and the only source information provided here is the URL of the image itself; we no longer have access to its copyright and licensing information.

Because we cannot verify that it is (or was ever) available under a free license, we must delete as a precaution unless the precise source and evidence of permission can be found.

Closing admins should familiarise themselves with the evidence and discussions at this RfC when closing this request.

Rlandmann (talk) 12:12, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – per PRP. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 12:49, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- original context now located at http://www.crh.noaa.gov/ict/scripts/viewstory.php?STORY_NUMBER=2011041822 -- rationale for deletion remains the same though, we still have no evidence that the photographer released this image into the public domain, although we now have a verifiable name. --Rlandmann (talk) 13:24, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Wall cloud visible west of Troy in Lincoln County, Missouri.jpg

This file is sourced to a National Weather Service website.

Such sites host a mixture of content created by the US federal government (public domain) and content created by businesses and private individuals (a wide variety of free and unfree licenses).

Copyright and licensing details of such third-party files is usually set out in the image captions.

Unfortunately, this image is no longer published by the NWS, and the only source information provided here is the URL of the image itself; we no longer have access to its copyright and licensing information.

Because we cannot verify that it is (or was ever) available under a free license, we must delete as a precaution unless the precise source and evidence of permission can be found.

Closing admins should familiarise themselves with the evidence and discussions at this RfC when closing this request.

Rlandmann (talk) 12:13, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – per PRP. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 12:49, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have changed the source link to a current NWS PDF which does currently host the file. I remain unsure whether this makes the image free or not, and don't have any determinative opinion on whether this file should be kept or deleted, but I did want to provide an update on this. ChrisWx ☁️ (talk - contribs) 22:48, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for finding that ChrisWx! How did you find that? Neither TinEye nor Google Image seaches found that PDF for me. --Rlandmann (talk) 22:59, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment In the new source found by ChrisWx, the image is unattributed. It doesn't look like the kind of images typically taken by NWS employees in the line of duty, and the earliest TinEye hits point to TV news sources KPRL11 and KTVI, the day after the image was taken. Unfortunately, these news stories don't appear to be archived, but given their publication date and the nature of the image, it's at least as likely that the NWS got it from the news media as news media got it from the NWS. Or, of course, they both got it from a common, now lost, source. In any case, we have no way of knowing this was ever released into the public domain, so I'm leaving this request open. --Rlandmann (talk) 23:11, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Rlandmann: I found the original source webpage containing this photo. The page attributes the images to "spotters, chasers, and local law enforcement" but does not give any names. Ixfd64 (talk) 16:52, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Yes, if anything, this confirms that this is not an NWS image, but by "someone else". --Rlandmann (talk) 23:18, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:20040514 large hail 5.25".jpg

This file is sourced to a National Weather Service website.

Such sites host a mixture of content created by the US federal government (public domain) and content created by businesses and private individuals (a wide variety of free and unfree licenses).

Copyright and licensing details of such third-party files is usually set out in the image captions.

Unfortunately, this image is no longer published by the NWS, and the only source information provided here is the URL of the image itself; we no longer have access to its copyright and licensing information.

~~Because we cannot verify that it is (or was ever) available under a free license, we must delete as a precaution unless the precise source and evidence of permission can be found.~~

Edit: a currently-hosted image has been found on weather.gov -- I'm leaving this request open for now because although unattributed, it doesn't seem like an employee-generated image. --Rlandmann (talk) 22:26, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Rlandmann, you mean weather.gov? Right? Because weather.com is the website for the definitely copyrighted Weather Channel (which is a U.S. television cable TV channel based out of Atlanta.) Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 17:29, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes -- just a typo. --Rlandmann (talk) 21:19, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Closing admins should familiarise themselves with the evidence and discussions at this RfC when closing this request.

Rlandmann (talk) 12:14, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain pending further information – I think this is a particular image that we should try to contact the NWS on for clarification. Will hold off on a !vote until that is done. Especially given how notable the image is. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 12:45, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Specifically the Wichita office. Even if they don’t know the copyright status; they may be able to tell us who took the picture; or they can confirm it’s PD status. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 12:48, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Rlandmann, it is in fact still published by the National Weather Service. https://www.weather.gov/ict/event_20040512; but it doesn’t have any attribution information. I would recommend someone attempt to contact them to see who took the picture and whether or not it is PD. Until then, I’m going to hold off on a !vote. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 18:52, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wow! Thanks for the find! How did you track it down? I've just repeated my TinEye and Google Image searches and confirmed it doesn't show up in either of those for me?

This one doesn't look like an NWS photo to me, so yeah, hopefully someone interested in keeping this image (maybe you?) will reach out to with Wichita office to confirm its origin. --Rlandmann (talk) 20:07, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The event summaries page on the NWS Wichita homepage. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 20:16, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As for emailing the weather service; I’ll defer that to someone else just because I’m not really into email (try the email function on me and you’ll find out real quickly that I don’t have email enabled on my account). Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 21:18, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Does anyone want to contact the NWS to get some answers on this? @Rlandmann @WeatherWriter @Hurricanehink @Ks0stm @Sir MemeGod Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 23:36, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yep; I'm happy to. --Rlandmann (talk) 05:00, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Rlandmann, whenever they do reply; please ping me. I want to know about it. Thank you. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 19:18, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Rlandmann, have we heard back yet from the NWS? Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 20:53, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not about this one yet. When I'm through processing the batch of images I'm working on at the moment, I'll circle back to the WFOs who haven't replied. --Rlandmann (talk) 21:31, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Since it’s been another month: has the NWS replied yet on this image @Rlandmann? (Maybe check your junk folder?) Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 19:58, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No -- so I have just sent a follow-up email. --Rlandmann (talk) 21:04, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

New information

The NWS regional office that published this image has confirmed that they do not know its origin. They said they are:

"fairly certain it was not taken by an NWS Employee"
"not really sure who took it"

I have forwarded this advice to the VRT (ticket:2024102110001636). --Rlandmann (talk) 04:43, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am updating my !vote to a reluctant

Delete per the new information. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 05:34, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A very reluctant

delete based on the NWS response. It sucks that we have to delete a valued image, but we can't keep a potentially non-free file just because it's popular. Ixfd64 (talk) 06:51, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I don't mean to rationalize, but this photo isn't that great in my opinion. It's fairly small and slightly blurred at the edges of the hailstone. I propose File:Record hailstone Vivian, SD.jpg as the new "valued image" candidate. Ixfd64 (talk) 06:56, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Which, @Ixfd64; it wouldn’t necessarily be the worst thing to happen. We’ve got featured images that have deletion requests on them right now. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 19:42, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Joseba Arrieta - Berton aldizkaria Begoña - Elkarrizketa.jpg

This image obviously reproduces a page from a magazine or a book. Though the uploader on Flickr tagged it with a free license, we can't be sure that they have any copyright over the image that was reproduced. -- Túrelio (talk) 12:55, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Túrelio. All the numbers of the BERTON journal (1998-2018) were published with CC-BY-SA licence in Uriola.eus in 2018. For example, the cover of the last number of the journal impressed in paper was upload here in 2018ː https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Berton_azken_azala.png Thanks Ksarasola (talk) 15:08, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Berton was published by Uriola under CC-BY-SA license, you can see it in the Internet Archive: http://web.archive.org/web/20200331013925/https://uriola.eus/. Nowadays the license is also Creative Commons: https://uriola.eus/lege-oharra/ but not specific. As the license was CC-BY-SA when these images were uploaded, and it is still under CC, I would go with keeping them. Theklan (talk) 15:40, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Same problem with:

File:Rui Matsukawa 20161109.jpg

similr https://www.matsukawa-rui.jp/#top_result eien20 (talk) 12:58, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files in Category:International Seabed Authority

https://www.isa.org.jm/wp-content/uploads/2022/06/isba-8a-4reiss_1.pdf would suggest that it's non-free unless deemed below COM:TOO Jamaica which doesn't exist. Complexity-wise I guess it's not the most complex logo/seal in the world however it's still far more complex than the least complex one. The {{Coat of arms}} tag on File:ISA logo.svg is invalid unless the design is deemed below TOO.

Jonteemil (talk) 15:08, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:ДАЖО 1-78-1021. 1825. Метричні книги православних церков Острозького повіту. Села Л-Ш.pdf

замінено файлом вищої якості https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:%D0%94%D0%90%D0%96%D0%9E_1-78-1021._1825._%D0%9C%D0%B5%D1%82%D1%80%D0%B8%D1%87%D0%BD%D1%96_%D0%BA%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%B3%D0%B8_%D0%BF%D1%80%D0%B0%D0%B2%D0%BE%D1%81%D0%BB%D0%B0%D0%B2%D0%BD%D0%B8%D1%85_%D1%86%D0%B5%D1%80%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%B2_%D0%9E%D1%81%D1%82%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%B7%D1%8C%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%B3%D0%BE_%D0%BF%D0%BE%D0%B2%D1%96%D1%82%D1%83.pdf Alexandrtovmach (talk) 15:14, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

keep no need to delete the old version Andre🚐 19:45, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Truongban noichinh tw nguyen ba thanh.jpg

copyright issue Mickey Đại Phát (talk) 15:14, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Thiếu tướng Phan Xuân Tuy.jpg

copyright issue Mickey Đại Phát (talk) 15:16, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Social Democratic Party symbol 1993.jpg

Borderline TOO case. Grandmaster Huon (talk) 15:16, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know how "unique" this stylized lotus is per COM:TOO Czech Republic. Does anyone know how their TOO has been applied in Czech court cases? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:40, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ksor Phuoc Ha.jpg

copyright issue Mickey Đại Phát (talk) 15:16, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Z5695052421862 21093a8e8af201462f0b5e363a29de3f.jpg

copyright issue Mickey Đại Phát (talk) 15:17, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I can't seem to find the original image on the Internet. Băng Tỏa 21:45, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Lieutenant Colonel Le Hai when he was still serving as Commander of the 937th Air Force Regiment - January 1977.webp

copyright issue Mickey Đại Phát (talk) 15:19, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Already published on the Internet in 2017 in this article so this is a copyright violation. Băng Tỏa 21:52, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per Com:Thailand, becuase this was taken in 1957, and is likley a work for higher being republished with 50 years of creation, copyright expires in 2067, with copyright being held by the publisher of the article. All the Best -- Chuck ^Talk 23:44, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:ThanhTrung19832024.jpg

copyright issue Mickey Đại Phát (talk) 16:33, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Published on the Internet prior to Commons [23] and thus is a copyright violation Băng Tỏa 21:07, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Being published on the internet before upload isn't an automatic delete, but this is

Delete as an OOS personal photo. All the Best -- Chuck ^Talk 00:27, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:DEU Hoppstädten-Weiersbach COA.svg

Das offizielle Wappen von Hoppstädten-Weiersbach hat im unteren Bereich eine andere Hintergrundfarbe und zwar vorne in Silber ein rotes zerbrochenes Rad, belegt mit einem schwarzen Schwert mit rotem Griff, hinten in Silber eine rote Ruine mit schwarzen Fenstern und Türe. Außerdem ist der Löwe im oberen Bereich falsch! Das richtige Wappen ist auf der Homepage der Verbandsgemeinde zu finden: https://www.vg-birkenfeld.de/gemeinden/unsere-gemeinden/hoppstaedten-weiersbach.html Dominik Werle (talk) 18:52, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:William Gillette in Sherlock Holmes cover.png

Superseded by File:William Gillette in Sherlock Holmes, page 01 (cropped).jpg, which was extracted directly from scans rather than the PDF. —CalendulaAsteraceae (talk • contribs) 20:24, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Reconstitution probable du blason de Louis Gaspard de Sales, Marquis de Gudanes, Baron de Château-Verdun et Aston (1707-1796).png

non utilisé dans un article Boutch314 (talk) 22:04, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not a deletion reason. Is it plausibly usable? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:54, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed there is a new version online; that said, the one this request is about is actually not usable as it shows the two top lions facing each other, which is an incorrect representation as one can state here (3rd pic.) --Kontributor 2K (talk) 10:12, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:RSC Anderlecht Logo 1908-1933.png

Above COM:TOO Belgium. Jonteemil (talk) 22:59, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1908 is not old enough for public domain? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:57, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If it's deemed an anonymous work, then yes, it's old enough. Otherwise it's author's death + 70 years. Jonteemil (talk) 07:02, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The book this is sourced to seems like a pretty authoritative reference work on the team. If there is no evidence in that book about the logo creator, then this is safe to label as {{PD-EU-no author disclosure}}. IronGargoyle (talk) 13:35, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Gautala 3.jpg

Unused poor photo of nondescript pond, no context, no educational use, iunusable, out of scope. P 1 9 9 ✉ 23:01, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. It's from w:Gautala Autramghat Sanctuary, also covered here. I think it is indeed a pond, not Gautala Lake. The pond is mentioned in the Marathwada Tourism link I gave. This is not a good photo, but since it appears to be the only picture of Gautala Pond on Commons, I'd suggest it be kept and documented more usefully. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:05, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

September 7

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Skibidi Toilet.svg

This file was initially tagged by Grandmaster Huon as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: Derivative work of copyrighted material. Derivative Work of copyrighted Skibidi Toilet Material. Di (they-them) (talk) 03:27, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It resembles this image. Grandmaster Huon (talk) 03:28, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This illustration depicts a head coming out of a toilet, which is a generic and non-copyrightable concept. Specific executions of ideas can be copyrighted, but the concept itself cannot. This illustration is not derivative of any specific screenshot or work. See COM:FANART. There is no copyright in an allusion, a name, or a commonplace pre-existing element (IE, heads and toilets). Di (they-them) (talk) 03:30, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think the head resembles the most common head in the videos. Grandmaster Huon (talk) 14:22, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Facial features are not copyrightable. Di (they-them) (talk) 16:34, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thus can the likenesses of Fictional Characters, like Solid Snake and Lara Croft be copyrightable? The face of this toilet clearly resembles a face from the Garry's Mod game, which is obviously copyrighted. Grandmaster Huon (talk) 03:53, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What is your argument now? You are obviously not familiar with copyright assesments at all in most of your deletion nominations. Thank you. ThecentreCZ (talk) 04:24, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Since the likenesses of photorealistic characters like Lara Croft and Solid Snake are the result of creative effort by the developers, I think they can be copyrighted. Grandmaster Huon (talk) 14:25, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On second thought, this head doesn't actually resemble any pre-existing skibidi toilet other than the basic idea. So

I withdraw my nomination. Grandmaster Huon (talk) 14:26, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, facial features are not copyrightable, as I said. Di (they-them) (talk) 04:35, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this is reaction to Grandmaster Huon. ThecentreCZ (talk) 04:48, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the above eloquent explanation. --RAN (talk) 17:08, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kept, withdrawn by the person who tagged it as copyvio (non-admin closure) Queen of Hearts (talk) 20:43, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Sacco and Vanzetti mural at Syracuse University (Ben Shahn).jpg

No FoP for 2D works in the United States A1Cafel (talk) 03:27, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Installed prior to 1978 without a copyright notice, so {{PD-US-no notice}} applies (see also COM:PACUSA). IronGargoyle (talk) 01:01, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Although I don't see notice anywhere, the Whitney, which is a respected institution, thinks it is still under copyright, see https://whitney.org/collection/works/1022. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:20, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The link you gave is to a painting. This is a mosaic. The act of publicly displaying the mosaic without a notice put the mosaic into the public domain. I am not sure about the display history of the painting and the accuracy of the Whitney copyright statement, but it does not seem relevant to the mosaic in any case. IronGargoyle (talk) 18:29, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Logo Faculty of Medicine, Universiti Malaya (UM).png

Copyright violation, found elsewhere on the web and unlikely to be own work. Ong Kai Jin (talk) 05:01, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, license fixed. Dmartin969 (talk) 07:50, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

because deletionist want it to be deleted MikeRoffe143 (talk) 15:38, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@MikeRoffe143: could you clarify what you meant by this? Dmartin969 (talk) 07:51, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Coat of Arms of Walter Scheel (Order of the Seraphim).svg

Same problem as here: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Coat of Arms of Walter Scheel (Order of Isabella the Catholic).svg GerritR (talk) 08:03, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Nalgonda map.jpg

Andhra Pradesh Government website images are copyrighted Arjunaraoc (talk) 10:37, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I made another version to replace the file if deleted: File:Nalgonda mandals pre 2016 numbers.png. It is based on another old map and the issue is that all the old maps may originally come from the same source. --MGA73 (talk) 08:58, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. While the archived website does have a copyright notice, this seems at odds with Indian law as described at {{GODL-India}}. There are US Federal Government Flickr streams which claim "all rights reserved" on their work, but we still treat them as public domain. IronGargoyle (talk) 14:32, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Завод минеральных вод «Истису» 2 сентября 2024.jpg

Higher quality version of the original file already exists at File:İlham Əliyev və birinci xanım Mehriban Əliyeva Kəlbəcərdə “İstisu” mineral su zavodunun açılışında iştirak ediblər (3).jpg — Golden ^talk 11:17, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't the higher quality version. It's the same file from the same source. Moreover, it was posted later than mine. Instead of adding description to my file in azeri user made nomination to deletion. Xcite (talk) 05:39, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:UK-Cabinet-Office-logo.png

OGL does not applicable for logos, but it is protected by Crown copyright. The way of Changpian (talk) 11:29, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The coat of arms is certainly in the public domain due to age and the text is a single simple font. The threshold of originality in the UK is low, but not low enough to copyright two words in a single simple font. IronGargoyle (talk) 14:25, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
See Commons:Deletion requests/File:Cabinet Office logo.svg--Mike Rohsopht (talk) 13:50, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Files in Category:Logos of governments and government agencies of Taiwan

Logos are not covered under {{PD-ROC-exempt}} or {{GWOIA}}. See Commons:Deletion requests/File:台北通TaipeiPASS.svg and Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Logos of universities and colleges in Taiwan. Also Taiwan's TOO is relatively low, Simple logos including calligraphy are protected by copyrights.

Wcam (talk) 13:53, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The 2021 version of the emblem of Control Yuan and the seal of Legislative Yuan could be simple enough to be covered under {{PD-textlogo}}. Both of which don't have calligraphy included either. —— Eric Liu_（Talk） 00:00, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination, kept the two mentioned by Eric Liu, agree these are below TOO of Taiwan. --Ellywa (talk) 22:24, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Files in Category:Logos of governments and government agencies of Taiwan

Non-free logos, per previous DR.

Larryasou (talk) 04:09, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 07:42, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Files in Category:Logos of governments and government agencies of Taiwan

These images claim {{GWOIA}} or {{PD-ROC-exempt}}. However, as per communications from the Taiwanese government:

{{GWOIA}} does not apply to administration's logos (source), and
{{PD-ROC-exempt}} only applies to symbols or emblems that are formulated according to law (source), in which case the particular law that substantiates this claim must be specified.

These images do not meet these conditions.

Wcam (talk) 11:56, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep File:Badge of the Coast Guard Administration of the Republic of China (2).jpg and File:Badge of the Coast Guard Administration of the Republic of China.jpg : The source and legal basise of the files have been updated to meet the requirements of {{PD-ROC-exempt}}. --人人生來平等 TALK 15:20, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:شعار مسابقة المحتوى المغربي على ويكيبيديا 2.png

repeater Mounir Neddi (talk) 12:28, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Men cameltoe mooseknuckle spandex men.JPG

duplicates of File:Wiki man cameltoe.jpg GiovanniPen (talk) 12:38, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Wiki man cameltoe.jpg

duplicate of File:Men cameltoe mooseknuckle spandex men.JPG GiovanniPen (talk) 12:38, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Flag of the Pashalik of Yanina.webp

Fictional flag taken from [24], as such under copyright by the creator of this design. Constantine ✍ 12:54, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files in Category:Election posters of the Christlich Demokratische Union Deutschlands in North Rhine-Westphalia state election 2017

Election posters are most likely not covered unter COM:FOP#Germany, as they are not permanently displayed in public places, only for the limited time frame around an election. A German High court case got a ruling against the application of the FoP in the substantially comparable case of the Wrapped Reichstag (Bundesgerichtshof, 2002, cf. Verhüllter Reichstag#Bildrechte). At least photographs of people or depictions of concise objects are best seen as copyrighted (precautionay principle). Furthermore, there is already a precedent set in Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Election posters for the Bundestagswahl 2021, several files got deleted on a similar rationale in 2022.

Grand-Duc (talk) 12:57, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files in Category:Election posters of the Christlich Demokratische Union Deutschlands in Saxony state election 2014

Election posters are most likely not covered unter COM:FOP#Germany, as they are not permanently displayed in public places, only for the limited time frame around an election. A German High court case got a ruling against the application of the FoP in the substantially comparable case of the Wrapped Reichstag (Bundesgerichtshof, 2002, cf. Verhüllter Reichstag#Bildrechte). At least photographs of people or depictions of concise objects are best seen as copyrighted (precautionay principle). Furthermore, there is already a precedent set in Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Election posters for the Bundestagswahl 2021, several files got deleted on a similar rationale in 2022.

Grand-Duc (talk) 13:09, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: all 5 CDU Saxony posters were uploaded by User:CDU Sachsen (verified account, see user page). 2003:E5:373C:E800:4C8B:A3F9:B467:C79C 23:36, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:V-Mann Joe Demotape Cover.webp

possible copyvio - we would need a COM:VRT permission to keep this M2k~dewiki (talk) 13:11, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:PBS Kids Go! logo.png

I believe this logo is both beyond the threshold of originality and copyrighted by PBS. William Graham (talk) 14:05, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See previous deletion at Commons:Deletion requests/File:PBS Kids Go! logo (2022).png. William Graham (talk) 14:07, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Clearly below US threshold of originality. The previous rationale was not about threshold, but about it allegedly being a hoax. As the image is currently in use, that scope rationale is moot. IronGargoyle (talk) 13:09, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files uploaded by Qraf (talk · contribs)

Very unlikely their own work.

Grandmaster Huon (talk) 14:34, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Yagi 2024 09 05 peak.jpg

Missing valid source, very unlikely to be author's own work. Zzzs (talk) 14:44, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: NASA NAOAA image. --RAN (talk) 17:17, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's the author, not the source. Looking at this image, it does not appear to be something that NASA nor NOAA would take since the colours don't match what the NASA's satellites (Terra, Aqua) and the NOAA satellites (NOAA-20, Suomi NPP) take and the GOES satellites do not operate in the area Yagi was at the time the picture was taken. This is likely a work from Himawari, but the source is still unknown. My best guess for the source would be ZOOM since the colours and resolution match. If that's the case, the image is copyrighted and should be deleted.

TL:DR; not a NASA/NOAA image and likely a copyright violation. Zzzs (talk) 01:03, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:جامعة القصيم.jpg

Copyrighted Materials: no information on the licence Michel Bakni (talk) 15:07, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:سامان فلاح.jpg

Copyrighted Materials: no information on the licence Michel Bakni (talk) 15:08, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files under Category:Noto-Satoyama Kaido

per COM:DW Yasu (talk) 15:20, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Preistraeger692 v-ardgalerie.jpg

possible copyvio https://www.deutscher-radiopreis.de/radiopreis/verleihung_2024/preistraeger/Bester-Moderatorin-Gianluca-Meli-von-988-KISS-FM,bestemoderation104.html - we would need a COM:VRT permission to keep this M2k~dewiki (talk) 15:25, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:DSC5440 - Flickr - dconvertini.jpg

This image from the City of Westminster, which has never even been properly categorised, is not fit for Wikipedia purposes. Obviously an uncontrolled bot upload. Xocolatl (talk) 16:20, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It is the corner of Whitcomb and Coventry Streets, just off of Leicester Square. File should probably be renamed, but it is a usable image. IronGargoyle (talk) 16:09, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Pope Francis arrives at GBK for Holy mass.jpg

Wrong upload, this img is a copy of File:Pope Francis last greeting to President Jokowi.jpg. Description and caption also wrong. Intended to upload another one. Kaliper1 (talk) 16:21, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Vassily Kandinsky, 1908 - Eastern suite (Arabs III).jpg

mirrored and low resolution version of File:V. Kandinski. East suites. Arabs III.jpg Carl Ha (talk) 17:46, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ok for deletion (better file available). --A1AA1A (talk) 19:56, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:El salvador 1861.jpg

This file was initially tagged by PizzaKing13 as Copyvio (Copyright) and the most recent rationale was: violation|1=COM:NETCOPYRIGHT, false own work claim, from twitter/blogspot, no proof of painting in PD

Converting to DR since the painting's copyright is the only relevant one here. Abzeronow (talk) 18:32, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Demo. Calixte.jpg

Own work. Darwin took this picture 50-60 years ago. 186.172.55.218 18:47, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files uploaded by AlexLeeCN (talk · contribs)

The tag used is {{PD-PRC-exempt}} and it is not clear to me that will cover the National Athem as it is a piece of music,not a law or judicial resolution. Also the National Anthem Law seems to forbid derivative works [25]: «There will be punishment for deliberately altering the lyrics or music of the national anthem, ...». Also the footer from the source states «All rights reserved. The content (including but not limited to text, photo, multimedia information, etc) published in this site belongs to www.gov.cn.. Without written authorization from www.gov.cn, such content shall not be republished or used in any form.» (or course it is only applicable if the tag doesn't apply.)

Günther Frager (talk) 19:15, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(1). The release (Chinese ver.) shall be considered as delegated legislation, which will become a part of National Anthem Law . According to National Anthem Law Article 10 Subparagraph 4 "The department determined by the State Council shall organize the examination, determination and makingof the standard musical notation of the national anthem and the official recording of the national anthem, and release them on the website of the National People's Congress and the website of the Chinese Central Government", while release press has stated, "According to the National Anthem Law". Hence, the musical notation and recording are released under the law.

This relevance could be verified by the press conference, the official stated：”由于演奏曲谱的类型比较多，...，其中有的曲谱篇幅比较长，把它们都作为法律附件不现实，所以国歌法第十条规定...“ ("Since there are many types of performance scores... Some of them are so long that it's impractical to annex them all to the law, so Article 10 of the National Anthem Law states... ") . It's clear that the musical notation has the same legal effect as the annex of the law, the only difference is this time is it is delegated to the government, not the congress.

(2). Article 10 (Where the national anthem is played and sung on the occasions prescribed in Article 4 of this Law, the standard musical notation of the national anthem or the official recording of the national anthem shall be used) has stated the musical notation has legal effect and are accordant with the Copyright Law Article 5 (laws...documents of legislative, administrative or judicial nature).

(3). The limitation of usage is definitely a Non-copyright restrictions. Violating it (insulting the anthem) will only bring criminal or administrative responsibility, and is not considered relevant to the freedom usageor copyright. (BTW, from my personal view, the Chinese word 篡改 should not translate to alter. Tampering is more accurate.)

(4). The footer of the copyright statement is more like a general declaration and can be reversed with other evidence, otherwise the Constitution may be copyrightable. Best regard. --AlexLeeCN (talk) 14:30, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Princeton - panoramio (54).jpg

Depicted sculpture is likely recent and still in copyright (Henry Moore died in 1986). Unfortunately, the US has no freedom-of-panorama exception for non-buildings. So, a permission by the sculptor is required or the image needs to be deleted. -- Túrelio (talk) 20:54, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Similar problem with File:Princeton - panoramio (77).jpg (artist died in 1973).

Keep. Both were erected before 1978 without a copyright notice, so {{PD-US-no notice}} and COM:PACUSA apply. IronGargoyle (talk) 00:56, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also:

File:Princeton - panoramio (78).jpg (sculptor not mentioned by uploader) - de minimis?
File:Princeton - panoramio (46).jpg (sculptor Toshiko Takaezu, died only 2011) - de minimis?
- Keep File:Princeton - panoramio (78).jpg as it was also erected prior to 1978 without a copyright notice (https://artmuseum.princeton.edu/collections/objects/31176) IronGargoyle (talk) 13:58, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Element

Superceded by the Wikidata Infobox. Mike Peel (talk) 20:58, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files found with Special:Search/Logos

leaf may be above TOO.

File:Fanta logo (2009).svg

Grandmaster Huon (talk) 21:38, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Below COM:TOO US. IronGargoyle (talk) 14:06, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Fanta logo (2018).png

per this Grandmaster Huon (talk) 21:40, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Below COM:TOO US. IronGargoyle (talk) 14:07, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:中國時報 B-2603.jpg

Not PD-Taiwan or PD-US. No evidence the creator has been dead 50 years. This looks like a scan of a newspaper image, which is not properly credited. It was likely copyrighted by the photographer and the newspaper. It's doubtful the deadlink source was the original publisher. Not PD in US. Licensing template in use requires a United States public domain tag to indicate why this work is in the public domain in the United States. Dual Freq (talk) 21:51, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Logo IU-LVCA.svg

Nominated for speedy deletion. This is an appeal from the uploader. The logo and other variations thereof have been authorised in Commons for years without any claims, therefore putting the ability to claim them ineligible in doubt. Fer1997 (talk) 22:10, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, It looks like a smiling sun to me. Grandmaster Huon (talk) 03:29, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, as it is considered a variation of said logo and therefore eligible. A whole Commons category has been created for those logos. --Fer1997 (talk) 08:13, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Question COM:TOO Spain states that a work must have the characteristics of "uniqueness, individuality and distinguishability" to qualify for protection. Does the arrangement of elements provide "uniqueness, individuality and distinguishability" under Spanish law? None of the individual elements in this logo do. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:39, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This depiction of a smiling sun is unique enough to qualify for protection in my eyes. Grandmaster Huon (talk) 23:07, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I doubt it's unique enough, by itself. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:44, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But it may be unique enough through a strict interpretation of COM:TOO Spain. Grandmaster Huon (talk) 05:08, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I brought up the question of whether the arrangement of elements...well, I'm not going to repeat myself. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:37, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Logo LCR.svg

Nominated for speedy deletion. Appeal from the uploader. No claims to copyright apply to this logo, which is not registered in the applicable registry for tradermarks (Spain). It is the symbol of a defunct organisation. I believe it is therefore under the threshold of the applicable template. Fer1997 (talk) 22:12, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Then change the template to reflect it, it is not a simple geometry, it is a complex interpretation of sickle and hammer. Grandmaster Huon (talk) 03:30, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In other words, no-one owns the copyright anymore? What about the person who designed the logo? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:41, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Logo Partido Socialista Argentina (full).svg

Nominated for speedy deletion. Appeal by the uploader. The eligibility of this logo was discussed and settled a few years ago and it was deemed eligible. I therefore believe the logo to be under the threshold of the template and therefore not eligible for speedy deletion. Fer1997 (talk) 22:15, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, the hand with the flower may not have been copyrightable, but the rose pattern to the right might be. Grandmaster Huon (talk) 03:33, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I personally think both the rose and the hand are too complex for pd-textlogo, but the rose is a derivative of File:Logo Partido Socialista Argentina.png, which is under a free license. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 21:16, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Glossar

German language page without content, only complaining about the Editor's index being in English Prototyperspective (talk) 22:15, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly didn't intend it as a complaint. I'm a native English-speaker. I simply wanted to point anyone who looked for a German glossary to get something useful: a link to Commons' English-language glossary, and a link to the de-wiki glossary, which overlaps significantly with the vocabulary needed for Commons.

FWIW, I think it would be great if someone did a German-language glossary for Commons (my German is not strong enough), but I think the current page aims anyone looking for that in the two most useful existing directions.

That said, if you really think it is a liability rather than an asset, feel free to delete it. - Jmabel ! talk 22:33, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Makes sense, I think that should be in the Commons:Editor's index to Commons/de page and this page could redirect to it. The glossary would via the <languages/> template. I think it's more a burden because it's not clear what it's about or that it's German-language in the two categories it's contained in. Maybe somebody else has some more info about what is best done for such cases. Prototyperspective (talk) 22:45, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Emblema de Unión Republicana.svg

Nominated for speedy deletion. Appeal by the uploader. Not only is this logo a full reproduction as no originals exist uploadable as such, but there are no copyright claims applicable for the logo; it is not registered in the applicable trademark registry; and it belongs to a defunct political organisation with no official successor in its country. Therefore, the logo is eligible for protection under the selected template. Fer1997 (talk) 22:17, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any proof of your claims? Grandmaster Huon (talk) 03:31, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You should add sourcing for source of your reproduction, and thats it. Other is obvious. ThecentreCZ (talk) 04:15, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have added the necessary info and I have changed the licenses in order to secure compliance. Do not hesitate to indicated any other actions to be taken. --Fer1997 (talk) 08:28, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes this is good, but I am not sure about uploading those originals itself rather than links to the sources. But this file should be okay anyways. Thank you. ThecentreCZ (talk) 16:06, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Emblema del Partido Republicano Radical Socialista.svg

Nominated for speedy deletion. Appeal by the uploader. Not only is this logo a full reproduction as no originals exist uploadable as such, but there are no copyright claims applicable for the logo; it is not registered in the applicable trademark registry; and it belongs to a defunct political organisation with no official successor in its country. In addition to this, a previous challenge to the eligibility of another version of this logo was settled favourably. Therefore, the logo is eligible for protection under the selected template. Fer1997 (talk) 22:18, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File should contain more information about Vector creation and source from which you created it, but as it is your reproduction of 90 years old emblemics, it should be OK and not adequate for deletion. ThecentreCZ (talk) 22:58, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How do we change the template to reflect this? Grandmaster Huon (talk) 03:34, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure how this goes in terms of Spanish Copyright law. Grandmaster Huon (talk) 03:34, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We do not change the template. We can add PD-tag for the intelectual value, but its not necessary. Primary is to include source from which Fer1997 created his reproduction and dating. If you don't know how goes copyright law you should not be nominating for deletion at all. ThecentreCZ (talk) 03:54, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Logo Caja Rural.svg

Nominated for speedy deletion. Appeal by the uploader. The characteristics of the logo are simple enough for it to be eligible under the selected template. Fer1997 (talk) 22:19, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely not adequate for deletion. PD-text and shapes. ThecentreCZ (talk) 22:54, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete What? This is a complex depiction of wheat. Grandmaster Huon (talk) 03:35, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Therefore I think it has "uniqueness, individuality and distinguishability" that grants it protection under COM:TOO Spain. Grandmaster Huon (talk) 03:48, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I do not believe the matter to be as clear as it seems. The case mentioned as reference for TOO compliance only alludes to academic legal doctrine, not to actual case law; they do not have the same value under Spanish law. There is no reference to logo design in the actual case analysed. It is not evident, from its content, what the threshold should be, and the consensus is the interpretation is ample enough for this and other logos to be eligible for PD-textlogo, PD-shape and eventually PD-trademarked protection. Therefore, I advocate we

Keep the logo. --Fer1997 (talk) 08:33, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Logo PSOE 2023.svg

Nominated for speedy deletion. Appeal by the uploader. All claims of inegibility of this logo have been settled in the past as the characteristics of the logo exempt it from any copyright claims. Special care has been taken to ensure compliance with said ruling. It is therefore fully eligible under the selected template. Fer1997 (talk) 22:21, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The only thing that is above TOO is the hand with the flower, which is already public domain, so

I withdraw my nomination. Grandmaster Huon (talk) 03:37, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You should not have started nomination of file already discussed in the first place. ThecentreCZ (talk) 04:11, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Logo PSOE 1998.svg

Nominated for speedy deletion. Appeal by the uploader. The characteristics of the logo ensure it is eligible for protection under the selected template. Fer1997 (talk) 22:22, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete complex flower shape. Grandmaster Huon (talk) 03:38, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As the matter is not clear under Spanish law or legal precedent thereof and there is no trademark claim to it, I advise we

Keep the file. --Fer1997 (talk) 08:24, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

When matters are unclear, the precautionary principle used on this site dictates that the file in question be deleted. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:44, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Símbolo da União Democrática Nacional.svg

Nominated for speedy deletion. Appeal by the uploader. Not only is this logo a full reproduction as no originals exist uploadable as such, but there are no copyright claims applicable for the logo; it is not registered in the applicable trademark registry; and it belongs to a defunct political organisation with no official successor in its country. Therefore, the logo is eligible for protection under the selected template. Fer1997 (talk) 22:24, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Any proof of your claim? Grandmaster Huon (talk) 03:38, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The organisation was dissolved by Institutional Instrument No. 2 on 27 October 1965. This meant that its legal entity was dissolved and no successor even existed which could claim the rights of the UDN. All members of the party either joined the new government-approved ARENA party or other underground organisations. In addition to this, given that almost 60 years have passed and that there is no clear legal consensus on the matter, I believe we should

Keep the file. --Fer1997 (talk) 08:20, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Web links to reliable sources for this statement? Grandmaster Huon (talk) 14:14, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Article 18 of the Institutional Act proclaims the extinction of all existing political parties and the cancellation of their registries, which is equivalent to the extinction of their legal entity. The text is available both at the Planalto website and at Wikisource. --Fer1997 (talk) 14:25, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Makes sense,

I withdraw my nomination. Grandmaster Huon (talk) 16:20, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Logo ONCE.svg

Nominated for speedy deletion by Grandmaster Huon. Appeal by the uploader. The characteristics of the logo make it eligible for PD-textlogo protection. Fer1997 (talk) 22:36, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What characteristics? This seems like a complex stick figure. It's not mere simple shapes. Grandmaster Huon (talk) 03:29, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The shapes are simple enough to be under the TOO in the terms of current Spanish law and case law. Provided that the current state of legal regulation and precedent is not clear enough and that the consensus is for a permissive interpretation of those terms, I argue we

Keep this and other logos as they can be deemed eligible for PD-textlogo, PD-shape and eventually PD-trademarked protection. --Fer1997 (talk) 08:37, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Conference of Vostitsa Stamp.jpg

possible copyvio © Kostas Klouvatos - we would need a COM:VRT permission to keep this M2k~dewiki (talk) 23:27, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Uvalde school surveillance.png

Camera tracked Ramos as he came in, automatically failing PD-AUTOMATED, the license given. There is no proof that this tracking wasn't human-controlled. -Sir MemeGod ._. (talk - contribs) 07:29, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Just out of curiosity, would the rest of the video still fall under PD-AUTOMATED? The tracking only lasts for a couple seconds, and the footage before and after the tracking period has no camera movement. If so, we could simply replace this photo with a screen grab from before the tracking, depicting the shooter entering the building, or after the tracking, depicting the police response. ARandomName123 (talk) 19:45, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose School surveillance videos are public records and cannot be copyrighted.

184.14.109.150 20:23, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

September 8

File:Reformed.png

i would think this is beyond TOO for Sweden? TheLoyalOrder (talk) 03:16, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's a simple cross. Who holds the copyright for that? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:53, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
different countries have varying levels of Threshold of Originality, I think the Swedish TOO might be met by this image TheLoyalOrder (talk) 23:25, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see how this could be copyrighted anywhere, but is Sweden specifically relevant? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:37, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
its from a paradox game, paradox is based in sweden - seeCOM:TOO for info on threshold of originality TheLoyalOrder (talk) 23:43, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the info. Keep per COM:TOO Sweden. Clearly less complex than this disallowed logo but also the 2nd "OK" one. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:54, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:AUR Logo.svg

"Disagree with deletion. Vector shape of map of Romania I don't see as eligible for deletion." - ThecentreCZ Grandmaster Huon (talk) 03:43, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, a complex shape regardless. Grandmaster Huon (talk) 03:44, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep No, it is not complex shape. This is few stars, 20 points-curved simple line of map of Romania and text font. You should not start requests anymore please. Some of these you've nominated and deleted have been already restored and you just added unecessary troubles. Thank you.--ThecentreCZ (talk) 04:04, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Because of the simple font, the simple stars and the shape of Romania. Welkend (talk) 07:03, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Romania has no data on TOO, delete per COM:PCP. Grandmaster Huon (talk) 14:13, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:CSSD Teillogo.svg

"Disagree with deletion of this file uploaded in 2012." -ThecentreCZ Grandmaster Huon (talk) 03:46, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, still think the arrangement of shapes is original enough to put it above COM:TOO Czech Republic. Grandmaster Huon (talk) 03:47, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep You are wrong. These are not unique. You've would question entire thousands of files with simple shape consensus. As I stated before, these are simple geometric shapes of

and 5 times

with one two pointed object. Cannot be seen as such. Thank you. ThecentreCZ (talk) 04:09, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The arrangement of the simple shapes may be "a unique outcome of the creative activity of the author" per my previous linked page. Grandmaster Huon (talk) 04:32, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

These shapes can be arranged in multiple ways in a creative manner. Grandmaster Huon (talk) 04:33, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes they can, according to previous assements, in this case this is simple case adequate to be on Commons is accordance with thousands of other logos. Not uniquely designed, on which treshold of originality can apply. ThecentreCZ (talk) 04:38, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

But the other logos were kept because the TOO of the country of origin was high. I'm not sure if Czech has a high TOO, as a strict interpretation of the law can mean that this logo can be copyrighted. Grandmaster Huon (talk) 14:06, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'm sorry, @Grandmaster Huon, but your perception of when something should be deleted does not match the TOO. Furthermore, a normal request for deletion of a file will also do. The fact that you are requesting quick deletions everywhere is not exactly useful. Welkend (talk) 17:41, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What TOO in question? Grandmaster Huon (talk) 20:20, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that non-obvious speedy deletion requests are wrong. But why do you think this file is below COM:TOO Czech Republic? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:57, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The arrangement of geometric shapes in a unique manner can be a creative effort as per COM:TOO Czech Republic. Grandmaster Huon (talk) 23:05, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That might be a fair argument, but it's not so obvious as to warrant speedy deletion. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:36, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

But is it enough to merit deletion regardless? Grandmaster Huon (talk) 03:47, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It might be. And that's why I asked User:Welkend why they think the file is below COM:TOO Czech Republic. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:48, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Files uploaded by KlaudeMan (talk · contribs)

Per website listed, photo is copyrighted by Time, with usage being "for personal non-commercial use only"

reppop^talk 06:32, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh lol, I didn’t realize could you send me the link? KlaudeMan (talk) 15:42, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Reppop I apologize could you delete these images immediately they are in fact copyrighted. KlaudeMan (talk) 15:54, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 12:56, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files uploaded by KlaudeMan (talk · contribs)

These two images were previously deleted as they didn't show that it was out of copyright as photographer Wally McNamee died in 2017. Reuploaded with the template {{PD-US-1978-89}}, but there's currently no indication that it was published in the first place. this collection of his works states that "McNamee retains copyright to his images".

reppop^talk 16:40, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Search online on the records, pre march 1989 images needed to be copyrighted but if you search on the records no indication of copyright is made. KlaudeMan (talk) 16:44, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Reppop Please remove the notice of deletion, just search the copyright records the image is in the public domain KlaudeMan (talk) 16:46, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

{{PD-US-1978-89}} directly states: "published in the United States between 1978 and March 1, 1989 without a copyright notice", and there is no indication that it was published (as I said). If you can give me where it was published, and that it didn't have a copyright notice there, I'll withdraw it as it would show that it wasn't copyrighted and not registered. reppop^talk 18:53, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Jameslwoodward: echoed the same thing in your undeletion request for one of the images deleted. reppop^talk 18:55, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Reppop Please delete the photos I agree with you they are copyrighted KlaudeMan (talk) 01:47, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I misread the pd notice and thought it was just an extension of copyright KlaudeMan (talk) 01:47, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:112096 beit kama aerial photograph PikiWiki Israel.jpg

This photo is from 2008, how is this public? Poliocretes (talk) 06:58, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. How does 2008 have anything to do with whether this image is free? IronGargoyle (talk) 12:58, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:PaulBernNote.JPG

While the text of the note may have been published, bibliographically speaking, in newspapers in 1932, with or without a copyright notice, for US copyright purposes publication (general publication) can only happen if authorised by the author. Any contemporary newspapers publishing this text would have done so as fair use, not because the suicide note was somehow public domain or, even more ridiculously, licensed under a compatible free license. In order to ascertain the note's copyright term we need to know when the first authorized publication happened, which, absent evidence to the contrary may have been "never"—it is entirely possible that all subsequent publications have been on similar fair use grounds—or may have happened at any point in the intervening years (if the estate or heirs granted permission to someone writing a book about the affair, say).

Since it is pretty much impossible to prove that it was never published with permission before 2003 (when {{PD-US-unpublished}} would come into play), we must assume per COM:PRP that publication with permission happened somewhere in the time window where a pub. +95 term applies (if publication was late enough that the term was pma. 70 it would have long since expired).

The best bet for anyone wanting to try to save this file is to trawl through the oldest books about this topic looking for one giving the full text of the note and mentioning in the text somewhere that they have the permission of the heirs (even indirectly in the form of thanking them for assistance or graciously permitting etc.). If found it may be reasonable to conclude that first publication happened no later than that time and copyright expires 95 years after that book was published, or it could be that that book either lacked a copyright notice or failed to renew copyright in the 28th year after publication.

Note that the file is in use on many Wikipedias and several of them may have EDPs permitting fair use material ala. enWP. Before deleting these should be notified and given the opportunity to import the file locally if desired and permitted by their policy. Xover (talk) 07:07, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep You disregard the very valid {{PD-US-unpublished}} option as "Since it is pretty much impossible to prove that it was never published with permission before 2003". It is just as impossible to prove that it was published with explicit permission. (If it was widely published without anything being done againest it by the heirs, I'd count that as implicit permission to have it published). PCP good & fine, but this arguing about a 92 year old low res one-sentence long suicide scribbeling is copyright paranoia. ~TheImaCow (talk) 16:11, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Of course not. You can positively prove that it has been published any number of ways. A prime example, a book that publishes it and says it is used by permission of the heirs (which is a very common practice). But as I also mentioned, you could even just make it plausible that this has happened by finding a book where the heirs have in some way participated, for example by the author thanking them for assistance or similar, without making the permission explicit. The opposite is true for proving it was never published, simply because you cannot prove a negative. Failing to find a publication does not mean there isn't one, just that you failed to find it.

And copyright owners failing to act in some way has never been a valid argument. The heirs could have failed to act for any number of reasons, lack of awareness being one obvious possibility, and unlike trademarks this affects their rights not one bit. But more to the point, the contemporary publications were in newspapers and were reporting on current events. That is, they were publishing it under the fair use doctrine (an affirmative defence against a claim of copyright infringement which does not apply to Commons and is explicitly not permitted under Commons policy). There was essentially nothing the heirs could have done to prevent this.

So… In order to preserve this you'd need to find a publication that is 1) plausibly the first (general) publication, and 2) that failed to comply with the required formalities (notice, renewal, etc.). Xover (talk) 16:47, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

COM:PCP requires "significant doubt" (emphasis original). What I see here are vague claims that the publication might not be authorized, or it might have been authorized, but too recent, or it might not have been at all. And any of this might be a problem. I think that's far from significant doubt.

The file in question is either {{PD-US-no notice}}, or {{PD-US-unpublished}}. If we're not sure, we can add both tags.

And the purely hypothetical case that the heirs -zero clue who they are- have somehow agreed the "publication" of a 1932 suicide note between 1977-2003? This goes wayyy beyond any reasonable research, and it is up to you to prove that.

And that this would somehow reset the copyright clock, are there any cases to look at? (Copyrighting someone's 92 year old suicide note.........)

Either way, some more input is certainly needed here. ~TheImaCow (talk) 01:39, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Toyota Camry TDL-7059 right side on Tingzhou Road 20240907.jpg

Advertising artwork on vehicle side is of recent origin. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 07:40, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:NTNU Store, Fat Daddy American Fried Chicken 20190216.jpg

Advertising poster of recent origin. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 07:44, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Advertising poster have been edited. Solomon203 (talk) 01:20, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Central Broadcasting System logo on Changsha Street 20240907.jpg

Commerical logo , Tawian has FoP for architecture and buildings only. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 07:48, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Oshi no Ko taxi head 20240810a.jpg

Essentially a 2D artwork on a vehicle , Taiwan has FoP only for architecture. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 07:49, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep No valid reason for deletion. See Category:Itasha. Solomon203 (talk) 07:51, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Aadawani lakshmidevi.jpg

Copyright violation. Clearly a screenshot of a copyrighted film being played on a media-device. Uploader has 100% record of copyright violations on screenshot-upolads, please see uploader's talkpage.

Uploader has done things like:

uploading mirror screenshot image for escaping copyvio: [26]
uploading copyrighted-screenshot images from Youtube by mentioning them as taken during film-shooting. [27], [28], [29], [30]
uploading copyrighted Youtube interviews as his/her own works: [31]
deceiving surveillance by saying the images were taken by his/her old camera devices, but which are actually a simple Youtube screenshots of copyrighted films: [32], [33]

Its 100% confirm that the uploader has faked a permission email to clear permission-status.

You can see the image in Youtube: Video link, Thumbnail of video The image is of a film-scene being captured by film-crew's camera.

--2406:7400:107:682:0:0:0:1 08:31, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: this is indeed a serial uploader of copyvios and deceiving people about that. Someone from the VRT team should check the ticket again, noting that good faith cannot be assumed from this user. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 13:02, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I informed Admin:Krd regarding the same: [34] about how did bot approve, but I dont have an evidence as proof for the permission-mail being invalid. If we come to know the email-id from which the uploader reached VRT, things will be easy. It surely is ‘Aadawani_lakshmidevi@gmail.com’ I bet. 😆 --106.51.110.101 04:21, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Arbeiderpartiet logo (hvit).svg

I appeal the nomination for speedy deletion due to copyright. This file is clearly above COM:TO for protection. Lots of the non-copyrightable examples have simple shapes in a similar or more complicated arrangement. Ved havet (talk) 09:17, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

But this can vary depending on country. This logo can definitely be copyrighted in UK or France. Grandmaster Huon (talk) 14:21, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

British and French copyright law is completely irrelevant to the logo of a Norwegian political party, hosted on the American Wikimedia Commons service. Ved havet (talk) 18:11, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

But in order for the file to be hosted, it must be both free in the United States and its home country. The flower of this logo is more complex than the hat in the logo of the TV series Jul i Blåfjell, which is copyrighted in Norway. Thus

Delete per COM:PCP. Grandmaster Huon (talk) 01:17, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Arbeiderpartiet logo.svg

I appeal the nomination for speedy deletion due to copyright. This file is clearly above COM:TO for protection. Lots of the non-copyrightable examples have simple shapes in a similar or more complicated arrangement. Ved havet (talk) 09:20, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Flag of Kuban.png

Lower quality version of File:Flag of Kuban.svg and File:Flag of Kuban People's Republic.svg Wheatley2 (talk) 10:03, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:F5 Ruskin Heights, Missouri tornado in Kansas 1957.jpg

The uploader sourced this file from the website of the US National Weather Service: https://www.weather.gov/eax/RuskinHeights where it's been hosted since at least 2016.

Per the source the photo was taken by Reverend Robert Alexander from the Methodist parsonage at Spring Hill, Kansas, in 1957, and that the photo came to the NWS via Tim Janicke of the Kansas City Star. A Rev. Robert Alexander died at the Methodist church in nearby Wellsville in 1971, aged 69,[35] who might plausibly have been the photographer.

The rationale for hosting it on the Commons has been:

a belief when the NWS general website disclaimer states that information on there site is "in the public domain, unless specifically noted otherwise" it necessarily means noted with a formal copyright notice, and that the absence of a formal notice accompanying an image equates to an assertion by the NWS that the image is in the public domain.
a set of terms and conditions used for a time by the NWS Sioux City office for public contributions

However:

There is nothing to connect this image with the Sioux City office (it was published by the Kansas City office)
A recent analysis of over 200 third-party images has found that whatever the NWS intends by "specifically noted otherwise" in their disclaimer, images that are known to be protected by copyright are routinely published on NWS websites without formal copyright notices, or sometimes without any attribution at all. Very many examples exist, spanning major media outlets, photographers who claim that they never relinquished their rights to their photos, and permissions granted to the NWS in public that did not include release into the public domain. Not a single one of these was published by the NWS with a formal copyright notice.

The most likely conclusion is that the NWS does not intend "specifically noted otherwise" to mean "specifically noted with a formal copyright notice". Alternatively, if that really is the intention of those words, the NWS has deviated from this intention so thoroughly as to render the disclaimer unreliable as an assertion of public domain status.

Copyright of images taken in the United States prior to March 1, 1989 depends on the circumstances of their first publication, rather than when they were actually taken. (see COM:HIRTLE).

This image might already have entered the public domain if it were first published before 1989 without meeting all the requirements for protection, but this cannot simply be assumed. Alternatively, for example, if it was first published in a book somewhere between 1957 and 1977 (and the formalities were correctly carried out), it will enter the public domain somewhere between 2053 and 2073. Or if the Rev Robert Alexander who died in 1971 was indeed the photographer and the photo was never published before 1989, then it will pass into the public domain in 2042, 70 years after his death.

I have searched The Kansas City Star's coverage of this tornado in the days following the event via newspapers.com but have been unable to find this photo. I tentatively conclude that they didn't have it at the time and the KCS connection must have come later.

Without details of its first publication, we cannot assess the copyright status of this per-1989 US image and therefore must delete it unless someone can provide this information.

Closing admins should familiarise themselves with the evidence and discussions at this RfC when closing this request.

Rlandmann (talk) 10:34, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete per @Rlandmann. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 12:56, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep For the following reasons (long post…sorry):

The image originates from this web site by the National Weather Service (NWS). The NWS noted the following caption with the photo: "Tornado near Spring Hill, Kansas. Original photograph taken from the north porch of the parsonage of the Methodist Church. Photographer looking north. Photograph has been cosmetically enhanced. As the storm strikes the small town of Spring Hill, Kansas, four members of the Isham Davis family were killed. Photo courtesy of Tim Janicke, Kansas City Star. Photographed by Reverend Robert Alexander.". Per the disclaimer linked at the bottom on the webpage, "The information on National Weather Service Web servers and Web sites is in the public domain, unless specifically annotated otherwise, and may be used freely by the public." We have confirmed evidence this image exists on a web site as well as the web servers of the National Weather Service (weather.gov).
For the clause of “specifically annotated otherwise”, NWS either allows the user to add a copyright “©” watermark to the image {as seen in this image, hosted on this NWS webpage} or by directly adding a copyright statement using “©” {as seen on this NWS webpage: difference between the “Tornado Photos” and “Damage” tabs}. That disclaimer is linked at the bottom of all three of the NWS webpages linked above (this image’s webpage + 2 I used as examples). To me, “specifically annotated otherwise” indicates a direct copyright (©) statement or watermark.
The NWS disclaimer also states, "Third-party information and imagery are used under license by the individual third-party provider. [...] Please contact the third-party provider for information on your rights to further use these data/products." See instances of usage below:

MissouriLife used the photo in this article where it is attributed “National Weather Service”.
The city government of Spring Hill, Kansas used the photo with no attribution in this post on Facebook.
The Kansas State Mesonet used the photo with no attribution in this post on X. To note, the Kansas State Mesonet is operated by Kansas State University.
The National Weather Service office of Omaha/Valley, Nebraska used the photo with no attribution in this post on Facebook. This is included as the NWS webpage with the image was from the NWS office in Kansas City/Pleasant Hill, MO.
WDAF used the photo with no attribution in this post on Facebook.
KEY: Martin City, Missouri, a city largely destroyed by this specific tornado, uses the photo on its own city history website, where it is attributed with the caption: “Actual photo of the ‘Ruskin Heights Tornado’ approaching Martin City from the direction of Spring Hill Kansas. Courtesy: National Weather Service”.
KMBC used the photo in this article from 2020 where it is credited “Rev. Robert Alexander”. The article cites the U.S. Weather Bureau throughout the article (not for the photo). Mr. Alexander was already dead at the time of this article, so copyright for the image physically could not have been given, indicating it is free-to-use.

To me, all the things above point to this image being in the public domain. So, I vote to Keep this photograph as it seems clear the U.S. government, local city governments, universities, and RS media indicate there is no copyright on the photograph. WeatherWriter (talk) 17:32, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WeatherWriter. ChessEric (talk) 01:35, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Let’s be clear @WeatherWriter @ChessEric: that it is possible that this image could have already entered the public domain if they didn’t register the copyright and didn’t provide notice. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 15:50, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To expand on this a little:

the earliest source for the image I know of is a book from 1983 published without a copyright notice and for which copyright was not registered within the statutory five-year period. If this was the first publication (and there's no reason to think it was...) this would place the image in the public domain.
I have interesting but uncorroborated evidence that the original photographic print of Alexander's image might have been on public display in Spring Hill prior to that date; if so, and if it was publicly displayed without a copyright notice, and if it it hadn't already been published elsewhere with a copyright notice, then this would also place the image in the public domain.

I'm noting these things not to try and change anybody's position here, but simply to illustrate that clearing pre-1989 US images is not straightforward and why significant doubt exists around their copyrights until we can zero in on the (actual or very likely) first publication of an image. Right now, for this image, 26 years still separates the photo from its first known publication, so we can't say anything with certainty. Speculating: if first publication was in a newspaper, it's probably in the public domain -- in this era only the very largest papers registered copyrights. If it was in a magazine or book, copyright might very well have been registered, and even renewed.

I recently got my hands on a 1930s book on sailing published in the US, which included some photos that I thought would be great for the Commons. This book only had one, single print run, and the author has been dead for very many decades now. However, when researching its copyright status, I discovered that (for whatever reason) his estate had paid to renew the copyright within the expiry window, and it will now still be protected for copyright for another decade or so! (I say "for whatever reason" because they never actually reprinted it; maybe they had planned to?) --Rlandmann (talk) 00:42, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files uploaded by User:Keetanii

These images were all uploaded by myself User:Keetanii about 12 years ago. I believe they should now be deleted because they're of poor quality (literally scanned copies of printed photos (not digital)) and there are better photos that do the same job available on Wikimedia Commons. Keetanii (talk) 10:13, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment a number are in use Gbawden (talk) 10:51, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For those images that are in use, I'd be happy to replace them with a better photo, available on commons, however I didn't do this myself as I felt it was a conflict of interest since I'm the one asking for my photos to be deleted. Please advise. Keetanii (talk) 07:25, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Flag of the Czech Social Democratic Party (1998–2021).svg

This file was initially tagged by Grandmaster Huon as Logo and ThecentreCZ wrote "Disagree with deletion." in incomplete special:diff/920781845. — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 11:13, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Grandmaster Huon. The uploader claimed to be the copyright holder of a copyrightable work in this edit. The file is over COM:TOO Czechia. Yet, they stole it from Česká strana sociálně demokratická (ČSSD).^[1]^[2] — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 11:19, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per Jeff G. Grandmaster Huon (talk) 14:07, 8 September 2024 (UTC) [reply]

References

Keep No, this is in my view not over COM:TOO Czech. Jeff G., you claims are absolutely not correct, sourcing of the logo was added immadiatelly 10 minutes after original upload to fulfill description of the file. You define stating original sourcing file as "stealing" is absolutely not a proper dictionary. Licensing original and derived file were already part of some discussions, and it was concluded that statement of it in the permisson column is acceptable as sources are given too. Please follow discussion at sourced file uploaded 8 years ago from German Wikipedia, seem as in-accordance with PD-Czech at here Commons:Deletion requests/File:CSSD Teillogo.svg. We were discussing this also with @Yann: gratitude for your assesments. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ThecentreCZ (talk • contribs) 16:30, 8 September 2024‎ (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep per ThecentreCZ --Grandmaster Huon (talk) 15:56, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:جامعة النور.jpg

Copyrighted Materials: no information on the licence Michel Bakni (talk) 11:14, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:جامعة النور 2.jpg

Copyrighted Materials Michel Bakni (talk) 11:14, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gallery pages

Unnecessary directory of gallery page categories, since you browse Commons categories more often than galleries. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 12:07, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How about revert it to the original redirect? Bennylin (yes?) 10:41, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Crystal Lake, Illinois, Holter home foundation.png

The uploader sourced this file from the website of the US National Weather Service: https://www.weather.gov/lot/Palm_Sunday_Outbreak where it's been hosted since 2015 without attribution

The Crystal Lake Historical Society identifies it as the work of local photographer Jim Seymour (d.1988[36]) It is one of a batch of 21 photographic prints that was donated to the society in 2000. The Society is unaware of any prior publication.

The Society has featured Seymour's photos of the tornado aftermath in a slideshow on its website since at least 2010, although due to a technology change, it's not possible to verify with complete certainty that this photo was among them. Nevertheless, the physical print in the Society's collection is the only original source known and documented for this image.

The tornado took place in the United States in 1965

The rationale for hosting it on the Commons has been:

a belief when the NWS general website disclaimer states that information on the site is "in the public domain, unless specifically noted otherwise" it necessarily means noted with a formal copyright notice, and that the absence of a formal notice accompanying an image equates to an assertion by the NWS that the image is in the public domain.
a set of terms and conditions used for a time by the NWS Sioux City office for public contributions

However:

There is nothing to connect this image with the Sioux City office (it was published by the Chicago office)
A recent analysis of over 200 third-party images has found that whatever the NWS intends by "specifically noted otherwise" in their disclaimer, images that are known to be protected by copyright are routinely published on NWS websites without formal copyright notices, or sometimes without any attribution at all. Very many examples exist, spanning major media outlets, photographers who claim that they never relinquished their rights to their photos, and permissions granted to the NWS in public that did not include release into the public domain. Not a single one of these examples was published by the NWS with a formal copyright notice.

The most likely conclusion is that the NWS does not intend "specifically noted otherwise" to mean "specifically noted with a formal copyright notice". Alternatively, if that really is the intention of those words, the NWS has deviated from this intention so thoroughly as to render the disclaimer unreliable as an assertion of public domain status.

Copyright of images taken in the United States prior to March 1, 1989 depends on the circumstances of their first publication, rather than when they were actually taken. (see COM:HIRTLE).

This image might already have entered the public domain if it were first published before 1989 without meeting all the requirements for protection, but this cannot simply be assumed. Alternatively, for example, if it was first published in a book somewhere between 1965 and 1977 (and the formalities were correctly carried out), it will enter the public domain somewhere between 2061 and 2073. Or if the photo was never published before 1989, then it will pass into the public domain in 2059, 70 years after Seymour's death.

Without details of its first publication, we cannot assess the copyright status of this pre-1989 US image and therefore must delete it unless someone can provide this information.

Closing admins should familiarise themselves with the evidence and discussions at this RfC when closing this request.

Rlandmann (talk) 12:16, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete per @Rlandmann. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 12:55, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Map of Pala Empire under Devapala.png

The map is highly exaggerated AlvaKedak (talk) 13:07, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This map is contradicted by the sources it cites, like Kamboja for instance, Chakrabarti in the exact same page that @Based Kashmiri cited, said," the inscriptional claim of Devapala’s subjugation of the Kambojas in the northwest is an exaggeration because the Sahi rulers were then very powerful in Punjab and the northwestern province." So clearly the creator does not know what they are talking about. AlvaKedak (talk) 13:16, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep “Chakrabarti in the exact same page that @Based Kashmiri cited, said," the inscriptional claim of Devapala’s subjugation of the Kambojas in the northwest is an exaggeration because the Sahi rulers were then very powerful in Punjab and the northwestern province." So clearly the creator does not know what they are talking about.”
No? Shah Sufi Mostafizur Rahman & Dilip K. Chakrabarti has states that A. M. Chowdhury believes that subjugation of the Kambojas may be exaggeration. However the both of them have rejected A. M. Chowdhury's theory in the next page and states We also find no difficulty in accepting the idea of a Pala raid in the Kamboja land in the northwest. and they also mentions and accept the subjugation of the Kambojas in the previous page. (See page no: 75 (Chakrabarti; Oxford), 51 (Rahman; Archeological Department) Based Kashmiri (talk) 14:06, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The AfD request is filed by an long term sockpuppet who has been personal attacking me and creating disruptive edits in multiple wiki projects. Please see [37] and [38] Based Kashmiri (talk) 15:00, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am neither a sockpuppet nor do I have any personal dislike for this user, I just don't like this map because it is exaggerated, I haven't made disruptive edits in multiple wiki projects, this is just a blatant lie you can personally check my edits if you want to. AlvaKedak (talk) 11:28, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We will see that in the SPI. [39] Based Kashmiri (talk) 12:43, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just a reminder, @Based Kashmiri, you still haven't responded to my defense in the SPI, you only responded to the claim about the map, which while relevant to the conversation, was not the main point of the discussion.

Also if you want to talk about the Sockpuppet allegations, please do it in the SPI page and not here, this page is for the map only. AlvaKedak (talk) 15:20, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Those who are reading this after the 16th of September, please ignore these messages, the situation has been resolved, my name has been cleared. AlvaKedak (talk) 10:50, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
COM:INUSE. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:10, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Stemma ChievoVerona 1993-2001.png

Although COM:TOO Italy is high, the knight is not a simple geometric shape. Permission from Chievo Verona is required. Arrow303 (talk) 14:54, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I actually created and uploaded the file taking inspiration by football kits in pictures of the 90s. The logo is nowhere to find on the internet.

I noticed that another version of the logo is present on Wikipedia, though with different colour combination than the original crest. This version has a proper copyright description referring to the registration number 0001154331 at UIBM. I really don't know how to add this kind of copyright template, can someone of you change the licence of my picture to this one [[40]]? Thanks El passs (talk) 08:51, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@El passs That image is uploaded on it.wiki because it's not releasable under a free license (that logo is still copyrighted and even recreating a logo yourself does not make possibile to license it under a free license, and fair use claims - such as italian it:WP:EDP - are not allowed on Commons). Thanks, Arrow303 (talk) 09:25, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ok I didn't understand 100% what you mean. Let's make it simple:

Can I upload my image with the same license of the other image already existing? It's the same kind of file (own), referring to the same UIBM registration number, just with slightly different colours in order to be closer to reality.

El passs (talk) 11:34, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@El passs (IT) Dal momento che sei italiano, ti rispondo così che ci capiamo anche meglio rispetto all'inglese. La risposta è no, perché qui (su Commons) quel tipo di licenza non è accettato.

Il presupposto è che il file è sotto copyright del Chievo Verona quindi:

- può stare su it.wiki unicamente sotto quella licenza indicata (che contrassegna comunque un file non libero e che presenta anche delle limitazioni nel suo utilizzo, proprio perché trattasi di un utilizzo limitato ed eccezionale)

- non può stare su Commons a meno che non sia talmente semplice da essere considerato semplice figura geometrica, cosa che però non è (perché Commons accetta solo materiale libero). Arrow303 (talk) 15:29, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bene dunque, se ho capito bene, posso caricare il file su it.wiki seguendo le licenze e seguendo le limitazioni del suo utilizzo (l'utilizzo è analogo a quello già presente dunque nessun problema). Ho caricato altri file e quelli credo rientrino nella semplicità delle figure geometriche. Grazie per il chiarimento. El passs (talk) 19:26, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Di conseguenza (se può valere qualcosa il parere di chi l'ha caricato) approvo la cancellazione del file su Commons, e pure del file Stemma ChievoVerona 1993-2001.png El passs (talk) 19:29, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Πέτρα ,ήλιος ,θάλασσα .jpg

This file was initially tagged by Εὐθυμένης as no source (No source since).

I really see no reason to doubt the uploader's “own work” here.

Comment This also affects other images by that uploader that have been tagged Εὐθυμένης. Msb (talk) 15:37, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Mosbatho: No Metadata or EXIF data is available to sustain the "own work" claim here. And the upload date of the said file(s) seems to be a quite recent one in order to claim that the technology wasn't that advanced back then, at the time of the original upload or of the photo shoot/take. 😕🤷‍♂️ 🏺ⲈⲨⲐⲨⲘⲈⲚⲎⲊ🏛️ ^{ⲱⲑⲏⲥⲁⲧⲉ} 16:29, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that an image file has no EXIF data can sometimes indicate a copyvio under certain circumstances, but definately not in this case. Oftenly, the EXIF info is automatically removed by certain programs/apps automatically, or the user has selected settings that remove EXIFs by default.

In the case of this photo, IMO it is more than obvious that it was probably taken using an older digicam or smartphone - no problem at all. The image quality is accordingly. Furthermore, the image was claimed as “own work” from the beginning by the uploader (no reason to doubt that) and there is really no proof, not even an indication, that copyvio can even begin to substantiate. Msb (talk) 16:51, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Mosbatho: Unfortunately, this has been proven multiple times on Commons, that uploaders tend to claim an image/file as "own work" despite it being not. 😕🤷‍♂️ Does this apply to every single case, though? Well, not necessarily... 🏺ⲈⲨⲐⲨⲘⲈⲚⲎⲊ🏛️ ^{ⲱⲑⲏⲥⲁⲧⲉ} 17:13, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The EXIF issue is well known. But once again: the lack of EXIF information is not automatically a copyright problem. Be aware of that, please. Msb (talk) 17:19, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:ὐθυμένης, please read COM:DR: "small size and missing EXIF data" is not a deletion reason by itself (at best that is merely supporting evidence for copyvio). -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:14, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. If we keep this file, we should seriously consider undeleting the other files by the uploader. All look like they have been tagged as "no source" by User:Εὐθυμένης, which was inappropriate to my mind, as the uploader claimed they were {{Own}} work. IronGargoyle (talk) 19:47, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No reverse image search hits on Tineye or Google Images for this file. IronGargoyle (talk) 19:51, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@IronGargoyle: Unfortunately, many locally based websites or personal blogs in Greece, or websites in general, tend not to keep much archive from their past or simply disappear in the nature. This, in turn, means that - as an example - today I can download and keep a photo from a local news website, tomorrow this website in no more, and then afterwards, if the file in question can't be found anywhere else at least in equal or larger resolution, I can upload it and present it as a work of my own. I'm not saying that this is what is happening here, I'm just raising a general concern of mine, especially since I've seen quite a few websites coming and going during the most recent years in Greece, thanks to the crisis, among other factors. 😕🤷‍♂️ 🏺ⲈⲨⲐⲨⲘⲈⲚⲎⲊ🏛️ ^{ⲱⲑⲏⲥⲁⲧⲉ} 16:17, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Those are all fine arguments to bring up in a deletion request, but tagging these as "no source" when there is clearly a claimed source (own work) is problematic. In balance, the fact that the images of this uploader seemed to be around the same place and did not have other suspicious elements, would lead me to assume good faith. IronGargoyle (talk) 13:15, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Msb (talk) 15:27, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Хан Крум

User:Εὐθυμένης had asked for a speedy deletion for this gallery page, but I do not see why. So please give a reason and we can discuss it. JopkeB (talk) 15:50, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@JopkeB: The said page/gallery doesn't seem to follow the overall guidelines that seem to be applied to such type of content pages. Be it for the title or the content. 😕🤷‍♂️ 🏺ⲈⲨⲐⲨⲘⲈⲚⲎⲊ🏛️ ^{ⲱⲑⲏⲥⲁⲧⲉ} 16:31, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What exact guideline is this gallery page not following? In what aspect does it fail? JopkeB (talk) 05:47, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Orce Nikolov.odmoralishte (5874312893).jpg

postcard from the 1970s +/- is copyright protecterd Albinfo (talk) 15:57, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Originalslika-1973 (5874313253).jpg

Postcard of 1973 is copytight protected Albinfo (talk) 15:57, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Razglednica-Makedonija-Ohrid-stari-deo-grada-1969 slika O 313031 (5874869428).jpg

most probably a copyright protected postcard Albinfo (talk) 16:01, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Razglednica-Ohrid-1966 slika O 313388 (5874869888).jpg

1966 postcard of Yougoslavia is most probably copyright protected Albinfo (talk) 16:03, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Razglednica-Ohrid-1966 slika O 313468 (5874309835).jpg

1966 postcard of Yougoslavia is most probably copyright protected Albinfo (talk) 16:03, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Razglednica-Ohrid-crkva-osamdesetih slika O 313535 (5874869096).jpg

late 1960s postcard of Yougoslavia is most probably copyright protected Albinfo (talk) 16:04, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:CGI Showreels HD -- 2015 ” Texturing - LookDev - Lighting - Compositing” - by Florian Magnin.webm

what is the music used here? If it's not CCBY the file needs to be deleted or the audio get muted. Somebody please do so. Prototyperspective (talk) 16:14, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Stemma Campiotti.jpg

Copyviol from https://www.diocesivolterra.it/s-e-mons-roberto-campiotti/lo-stemma/ . Antonio1952 (talk) 17:39, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Courtney Taylor Taylor and David Bowie at Meltdown Festival 2002.jpg

No permission from the source and author A1Cafel (talk) 18:13, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files uploaded by Ellidette (talk · contribs)

not own work and above COM:TOO UK, which is very low

Yeeno (talk) 18:27, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:ΚΑΒΒΑΔΙΑΣ23Α15.jpg

This file was initially tagged by Εὐθυμένης as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: Copyrighted text material title ("ΕΚ ΤΩΝ ΕΝ ΕΠΙΔΑΪΡΙΑ ΑΝΑΣΚΑΦΩΝ.") and subsequent cursory google search seems to indicate book is PD —Matrix(!) {user - talk? - _uselesscontributions} 18:57, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:St.Paul Poznan interior.JPG

Wnętrze kościoła zbudowane w latach 90. XX wieku, jako takie chronione prawem autorskim. Teukros (talk) 19:30, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Embassy of India, Addis Ababa.jpg

This file was initially tagged by Nutshinou as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: COM:CSD#F1, Possible copyright violation: No evidence of a free license at the claimed source. Falls under {{GODL-India}} if explicit source is found —Matrix(!) {user - talk? - _uselesscontributions} 19:49, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Embassy of India, Kabul.jpg

This file was initially tagged by Nutshinou as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: COM:CSD#F1, Possible copyright violation: No evidence of a free license at the claimed source. caption on NDTV says "Image posted on Facebook by India in Afghanistan (Embassy of India, Kabul)" so it's likely to fall under {{GODL-India}} —Matrix(!) {user - talk? - _uselesscontributions} 19:50, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Enregistrement Au-Delà.jpg

Possible copyvio: A copyright appears in the metadata, VRT requested https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Wikimedia_VRT_release_generator CoffeeEngineer (talk) 20:05, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:OIP (1) (1).png

There is no evidence that this logo was created by someone who has been dead for over 70 years. The Wanderers club active between 1859 and the 1880s never used this logo. ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:12, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I did some research this logo was made in 1860 Cbilbs (talk) 12:00, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files uploaded by Vanished user ee748d473e9122ac1a7e4de97de86108 (talk · contribs)

I think the user has no idea about free images or Commons policies, from the description he wrote on the images in Arabic he is using them to express something, he doesn't add any information or details about the images and that confirms that he is not the owner, I also searched for this image using Google Lens and found that it is spread on other sites and most likely he re-uploaded these images.

Ibrahim.ID ✪ 20:35, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

كيفية التعامل مع المشاع الابداعي 105.103.247.133 13:37, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How to prevent this account from being deleted

I am the owner of this account 41.111.105.182 19:32, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No-one is suggesting that your account be deleted. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:36, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Could be rather something like "this historical account of an event" = photo / image. Not user account. Nakonana (talk) 23:49, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I see what you mean. A record, so to speak. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:47, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ruined homes in Kalbajar city, Azerbaijan.jpg

Requesting deletion of file I uploaded because an exact duplicate already exists at File:Кельбаджар Последствия войны с. Заллар 16 августа 2021.jpg — Golden ^talk 21:23, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Iulian Ciocan in Berlin.jpg

possible copyvio © Josef Sallanz - we would need a COM:VRT permission to keep this M2k~dewiki (talk) 21:39, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ja, ich habe die Erlaubnis des Eigentümers/Fotografen zum Hochladen. wurde auch beim Hochladen so angegeben. Plupp (talk) 21:45, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:Plupp, please either have the photographer contact COM:VRT or contact them yourself with written proof that you have the permission of the photographer to license their photo for commercial use under the terms of COM:Licensing. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:39, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

is it enough if the original photographer, Josef Sallanz, sends a short email with the picture name and the license type, e.g CC BY-SA to permissions-commons-de@wikimedia.org Plupp (talk) 08:51, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know, because I haven't worked on the VRT. My guess is, probably, but they'll let him know. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:22, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:ANA MA HDZ.jpg

unclear if original not-upscaled version is copyrighted, also unsuitable to illustrate the article of the person it may or may not depict (the article says "photo from the 1950s") Carl Ha (talk) 21:39, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

AI art for historical scenes

most images seems to be deleted, makes no sense anymore, also in general person page and not proper Gallery page Carl Ha (talk) 21:42, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I see no problem with historical images. It is still in scope. If anything I think this helps people see what happens if it is a lesser known historical event. LuxembourgLover (talk) 21:55, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - AI has no place on Commons or any other Wikimedia project. By letting AI stay on this platform, we are essentially keeping what could be misinformation. AI does not know how history truly was like humans do, why should we risk it? Wheatley2 (talk) 22:41, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes AI does not know. People shouldn't just prompt "give me an image of XYZ", instead they need to engineer it to precisely show what they have in mind which should match some descriptions, like those in books about the matter. It's not the AI that makes it accurate but the human and it's no less accurate than artworks about historic events made manually. Rather than outright censorship of everything historic made using modern tools (you really don't see a problem with that?), only clearly inaccurate or low-quality ones should be deleted. Prototyperspective (talk) 22:57, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You should see how long it takes for an AI to make one of my uploads. It took hours to get one that is historically accurate, if someone trys to make a good one, we should keep it. As Prototyperspective said: “AI art for historical scenes makes sense for example for scenes for which there are no photos and maybe not even artworks.” Like my work (AI’s work) on the Lot Smith Cavalry and Morrisite War. LuxembourgLover (talk) 23:02, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is indeed in a bad state now because people unjustifiably deleted in use useful images and it was only a stub earlier. AI art for historical scenes makes sense for example for scenes for which there are no photos and maybe not even artworks. Prototyperspective (talk) 22:54, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would disagree, @Prototyperspective. AI imagined images are more likely to skew than to inform understanding of historical events, both because of less-thoughtful use of the technology when writing prompts and because of the still-significant limiations of the technology. A portrait of a hisorical event (contemporary or from later) might suffer from similar biases, but that can be mitigated through context about the painter and when they were working in a way that AI-generated images can't. —Tcr25 (talk) 19:02, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if it's more likely but it's not generally the case and probably also not sufficiently likely...that is because as things become more accessible and less expensive (good things), there is a greater likelihood of the person creating the image not being very familiar with the matter including the details. A ~~portrait~~ image of some historical event can just as well be contextualized through context about it being AI made. There is no advantage of normal paintings (made in the past or present) in that regard. Prototyperspective (talk) 19:54, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well

Keep because solid arguments for deletion are missing and if / because it can be improved. It says As just explained, AI generators still have problems with generating faces and other issues. Please keep that in mind since correcting that can require significant skills and may limit the usefulness or realism of the images. for example, so also serves to inform about issues with such images, and thus is also useful in respect to the mostly refuted arguments made in favor of deletion that seem to argue for censorship and making artworks depicting historical figures and events less accessible again. Inaccurate images of that kind should get Template:Inaccurate and be corrected, not used, and/or deleted which does not relate to this gallery whose contents have been censored or deleted in violation of the well-established important COM:SCOPE policy. Prototyperspective (talk) 09:27, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What about examples like Lot Smith Cavalry and Morrisite War, it’s hard to mess those up. LuxembourgLover (talk) 01:32, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Prototyperspective Your uploads do not seem to be very constructive. You seem to only mass upload Creative Commons YouTube videos, most of them not even used on a single page. ~~Clearly you don't understand Commons.~~ How is any of this useful? Wheatley2 (talk) 05:22, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Are you being serious? Please look at actual mass uploaders, especially of useless large videos. I upload lots of useful things and most of it is very useful, and an unusually large fraction in use which is more than can be said about most uploaders. Same for images from studies which I upload and which are particularly useful. In any case, this is entirely irrelevant to this discussion. Prototyperspective (talk) 09:19, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A category for these made up images would be sufficient. Thi gallery has no value. The Banner (talk) 13:29, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why are pictures being deleted? We have not reached a consensus. I still belive this is the best way to show Historical events or groups that are lesser known and do not have pictures in the public domain or any pictures in general. If this is deleated could I just one of my artist friends to draw or paint something and upload it to wikipida? LuxembourgLover (talk) 15:02, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The pictures were deleted by Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Giovanna IV di Napoli by Bing Image Creator where a consensus was reached in December 2023; images are inaccurate, don't look anything like the people they supposedly depict. Belbury (talk) 21:45, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done It looks like most of the images have been deleted in the meantime anyway. And no, you can't. Otherwise the images will probably just get deleted like these ones. Maybe take the hint. --Adamant1 (talk) 17:00, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for being a how-to essay that claims to be a gallery and reads like official Commons policy, and which seems at odds with how consensus actually goes on this type of content. Belbury (talk) 21:50, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

True, it shouldn't be a gallery. It wasn't meant to be a gallery but the type can be changed. This type of content is largely not useful relatively low-quality content, if people used the info on this page they may created something that is actually useful but that seems rare and currently it seems like people only upload mostly the least useful kind of AI images instead of most-useful ones. Prototyperspective (talk) 22:24, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:McDonnell, James S. - 5021345708.jpg

Likely copyrighted artwork. Artist signed in lower left (illegible). Ooligan (talk) 21:43, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Although it was created by the artist, its copyright was transferred to San Diego Air and Space Musuem after the museum's repository earned the custody of the artwork. Hence, its no longer under the copyright of the artist but in public domain as per SDASM posting of the image in its Flickr account. Bookish Worm (talk) 05:43, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:James McDonnell portrait.jpg

Likely copyrighted artwork. Artist signed at bottom right (illegible). Ooligan (talk) 21:43, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Although it was created by the artist, its copyright was transferred to San Diego Air and Space Musuem after the museum's repository earned the custody of the artwork. Hence, its no longer under the copyright of the artist but in public domain as per SDASM posting of the image in its Flickr account. Bookish Worm (talk) 05:42, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Jawad ahmed.JPG

Copyright holder: Asad Hayat, is this the uploader? 186.175.78.77 22:38, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:La-voz-argentina-logo.png

There is a possibility that this logo may pass the COM:TOO due to the specific angle and shape of the figure representing the V, which could be represented as a hook as well. In that context, I prefer to open a deletion request and decide on its permanence. Taichi (talk) 22:41, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also File:Lavoz-argentina-logo.jpg. Taichi (talk) 22:55, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Tratohecho-logotipo.jpg

This logo has a texture that does not make it a simple figure, therefore it could be exceeding the COM:TOO. Taichi (talk) 22:50, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Educando-a-nina-logo.png

Logo with texture and three-dimensionality that does not make it simple, therefore it could be exceeding the COM:TOO. Taichi (talk) 22:52, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Viudas-e-hijos-del-rock.jpg

Logo with different specific fonts in each letter and placed at specific angles on a very specific irregular background, therefore it could be exceeding the COM:TOO. Taichi (talk) 22:54, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Logo de eltrece lanzado en 2016.png

Logo with a specific texture and shape, so it could be exceeding the COM:TOO. Taichi (talk) 22:58, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also File:Logo de eltrece lanzado en 2016 (cropped).png. Taichi (talk) 22:59, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The key point is not COM:TOO but COM:TOO Argentina. It helps to include the country's name, so that people checking the logos don't have to figure it out themselves. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:44, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files uploaded by LordBirdWord (talk · contribs)

Unable to confirm the source, all images are credited to George Micro YouTube videos which do not, twelve hours after these images were uploaded, exist.

Copyright concerns per Commons:Deletion requests/Files found with @GeorgeMicro1, where George Micro appeared to be posting stills of candidates' social media footage to Twitter and incorrectly claiming them to be photos that he had personally taken. This may be the same thing but on YouTube.

Belbury (talk) 11:37, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, the video exists. It has YouTube BY-CC Marked. What’s the problem? And also, why is Tony Jones image in here? It’s not even apart of the Debate2024. The debate would’ve been copyright claimed if none of the content was original. LordBirdWord (talk) 13:25, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Where is the video? The URL source given for all four of these images goes to a This page isn't available. Sorry about that. YouTube 404 page.

My mistake on the Tony Jones image, I see you're crediting it to the New Era Party of Florida rather to George Micro. But the YouTube link you provide for that file's source is still a 404 page. Belbury (talk) 14:12, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I’m terribly sorry. Is there an email I can send the links too? I tried sending them through here but the message wouldn’t send. LordBirdWord (talk) 23:18, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Commons filters out short links like youtu.be, so it might work to write out the full youtube.com URL. You can email via COM:VRT if not. Belbury (talk) 09:44, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hunt, Carpio, and Daví: https://m.youtube.com/watch?si=iAvDIO7Z-b7OCe3o&v=F0i5KXMs2A4&feature=youtu.be

New Era Party of Florida Video: https://m.youtube.com/watch?si=3ZXoth_HOQDkiwYa&v=1A4majDGAJY&feature=youtu.be LordBirdWord (talk) 19:48, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I replaced the broken link with the new link in all 4 photos. LordBirdWord (talk) 22:20, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks.

The first link is a livestream of a promotional video call between several people. Is there anything that tells us that George Micro owns the copyright to that broadcast, rather than it being an upload of a livestream that he watched online?

The second link is a minute-long video of a low-end AI voice reading out a script over this static low resolution photo of Tony Jones, on a channel with no other uploads. I wouldn't have much confidence that this was the channel's own picture of Jones, from that, although I can't find the image anywhere else online. Belbury (talk) 15:45, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I actually have no idea about all of that information. I just saw CC-BY and thought that meant it was Copyright free. I deeply apologize for all of that. If these images are copyright, then please delete them. I understand, and I’m sorry for the mistake. I’m friends to George Micro, and he doesn’t know the answers to these questions as well. LordBirdWord (talk) 16:53, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Was actually gonna comment before it was closed and reopened, but

Delete the Tony Jones one, as its a crop from this photo from Jones's Facebook page. For the first one though, there is a part where the moderator Jackie Carpio thanks George Micro, so I think there's a chance that he could actually be the organizer as he claims in the description. reppop^talk 18:59, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I realized that too. George was mentioned in the beginning and the end by Jackie. Would that mean he had copyright claims? LordBirdWord (talk) 20:33, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. In the beginning and end, George Micro is directly mentioned as organizer by Jackie Carpio. LordBirdWord (talk) 17:41, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

September 9

Files in Category:Op den Graeff family in art by Matthias Laurenz Gräff

These are personal drawings that were uploaded by a globally locked user for the purposes of promoting the artist and their family. So the images should be deleted as OOS SPAM.

Adamant1 (talk) 02:49, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Some of these images are part of different articles. That request is not expedient and ridiculous! It seems like retaliation to want to delete hundreds of files. If the user has a concern, it is probably a case for the arbitration court. Regards 109.178.170.151 13:36, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The user was apparently banned fairly because he mainly used two accounts at Wikipedia. But what Wikipedia isn't about is deleting everything here at Wikimedia Commons. --109.178.170.151 14:51, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

LOL. Stop socking and lying. A09 (talk) 12:47, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Don't include images that are COM:INUSE. Cross those out, please. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:48, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Ikan Kekek: I have no problem removing the files from the DR that are in use if you really feel like making an issue out of it, but the guideline say usage doesn't count if it is being done in bad faith and from what I saw when I looked all the files that are being used on other projects were added to them by the uploader. So I think they should be deleted anyway considering the nature of the thing and that keeping them would allow for someone who was clearly using this and other projects in a promotional way to game the system. At the end of the day these images don't represent the people or time periods accurately anyway. A lot of them look like a child drawing of 1990s Disney characters. So there's absolutely nothing being lost here if the images are deleted. We just aren't allowing for Commons to be used for advertising by globally locked users. --Adamant1 (talk) 23:22, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you could remove them from the articles where they're being used. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:33, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

People our end usually have an issue with that. It doesn't really matter anyway. The files can still be deleted by whomever closes regardless of if they are being used on other projects or not. I've made my case why I think they should be. I'll leave it up to the closing admin to decide if they should be deleted or not though. BTW, the IP editor who commented above is pretty likely a sock of the uploader. Do you really want to encourage that kind of behavior and side with a globally locked user who's still doing exactly what got them banned by keeping the images? I rather not. --Adamant1 (talk) 00:10, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I support removing thumbnails from articles where they don't belong. As far as anything else is concerned, I suspect the closing admin will just delete "per nomination", but the whole point of COM:INUSE seems to me to be for us not to argue here about what should be used on sister sites. And there certainly is precedent for leaving pertinent images by banned users on sister sites and not deleting them here. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:37, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Don't argue it about it then. Per COM:INUSE "File not legitimately in use: A media file which is neither: Realistically useful for an educational purpose, nor legitimately in use as discussed above falls outside the scope of Wikimedia Commons." It's certainly on us to figure out if those two things are being met or not since it's our guideline. Although I agree that you could argue the images shouldn't deleted due to them being uploaded by a banned user. That's not the only reason I've given though. There's clear evidence here that the drawings aren't "Realistically useful for an educational purpose" or "legitimately in use" due to the nature of the files and the promotional purpose behind them. So be guest and ignore the whole thing about the user being banned, there's still plenty of grounds to delete the images regardless and it's totally within our right to make that call. --Adamant1 (talk) 00:48, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, a file which is neither realistically useful for an educational purpose nor legitimately in use is not in scope. You are hanging your hat on "legitimately"? Then how do you explain "A media file that is in use on one of the other projects of the Wikimedia Foundation is considered automatically to be useful for an educational purpose"? Better yet, how will the closing admin explain why the language in Commons:Project scope isn't clarified to mean what you want it to mean if they delete files that are in use? If you all want it to state what you want it to mean, Commons:Project scope should be edited per a proposal made on its talk page that gains a consensus. What I've found, though, is that admins do whatever they want, and the simplest proposals to even correct typos on page names like the one in the word "images" in COM:Quality images candidates never get a consensus behind them (I even volunteered to fix all the links to that page myself when that was said to make the grammar edit not worth it), with the result that there are many guidelines that are in black text on this site but not followed as stated and are in practice null and void. At least COM:INUSE is followed most of the time, unlike some other policies... -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:13, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are hanging your hat on "legitimately"? No, that's why I also mentioned that the images are amateur artwork that look like early 90s Disney cartoons. Those types of images are inherently not educational due to the nature of the thing. A picture of historical person that looks like it was created by a 6 year old who drew it after watching Mulan or whatever can't be educational because it's clearly not an accurate representation of the people or time period. It's laughably ridiculous to treat me otherwise. I don't even disagree with most of your other points, but they don't really have anything to do with this and aren't my problem. I agree that spelling errors in COM:Quality images candidates should be fixed, but that's not relevant to the DR in any way what-so-ever. But sure, let's keep promotional third grade level drawings because "images" is spelled wrong in the guideline. Whatever. --Adamant1 (talk) 01:24, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't care about keeping these images, but I think it's important not to second-guess sister sites, so I want the thumbnails removed there first. Once they are no longer in use, I would not oppose their deletion. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:00, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Be my guest and remove them. I'm not going to do it myself because it would needlessly look like I'm trying to game the system or something though. It's not like there's a requirement in Commons:Project scope that images have to be removed from other projects before being deleted if they aren't educational anyway. So I really don't see why it matters. --Adamant1 (talk) 02:05, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I believe you're unintentionally correct here: "It's like there's a requirement in Commons:Project scope that images have to be removed from other projects before being deleted if they aren't educational anyway." -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:17, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Can you point out where the guideline says anything at all like that? --Adamant1 (talk) 02:28, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's not specified, but the language I cited is. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:28, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We'll have to agree to disagree, but I don't think the part you cited overules the rest of the guideline about what types of usage on other projects is valid or not. Otherwise there would be zero point in that whole section to begin with. Its extreme cherry picking to take two sentences out of a multiparagraph guideline and act its the only thing that matters. Obviously everything within the context of wording i the rest of the guideline. --Adamant1 (talk) 03:37, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's nothing more than an accurate reading of the plain phrasings of COM:SCOPE. If it's supposed to mean something different, the language should be changed to be crystal clear about that. That's all I ask for, but I don't think I'll get it. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:47, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. I don't disagree with you that the guidelines could be clearer. I've been going about for a while now myself but it doesn't seem like there's any will to improve things in that area at this point. Hopefully there will be at some point though. As I do think it's an issue. One that causes a lot of needless drama and work. --Adamant1 (talk) 04:07, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Delete all. Historical sketches without proper sourcing, all sketches look very similar and are obviously based on a template. Also collages are falsely represented through wikiprojects, but they are just artistical imagery that shouldn't serve as "historical depictment". A09 (talk) 12:52, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The uploader is blocked for good reasons but now he cannot intervene in this different discussion. Some try to delete these files may through an inappropriate discussion. These are sketches of people in historical costumes and events, of which there are no public domain files! There are also coat of arms variants of which there are no public domain images on the Internet. That's why these sketches were uploaded to support something visually. Of course, this images will be deleted at will, since apparently some people may have a larger lobby here. But the artwork is by the artist and is accurate! Maybe there is a good solution? --212.95.5.142 13:25, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If I have wrongly suspected anyone, I of course apologize very much! 212.95.5.142 13:43, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment for reviewing admin: The IP was blocked as an IP sock of Donald1972. Discard the above vote as votestacking. A09 (talk) 19:33, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:BobWillsBlueYodelNo1.ogg

Obviously not public domain in the US, and not even based on a “folkloric composition” so the core tune isn’t public domain either. Dronebogus (talk) 07:44, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ebisubashi - panoramio.jpg

No FoP for 2D works in Japan A1Cafel (talk) 08:29, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that the building can be photographed without a billboard. Here's another photo of the building (the building is on the right) and it also has a billboard: File:Dotonbori - panoramio (7).jpg. And in this photo, the building is on the left, and there's also a billboard on it: File:Ebisubashi - panoramio - DVMG.jpg. So, even if one takes photos of only part of the building, there are still billboard visible. Taking a photo of the complete building inevitably will have a billboard in the photo. Nakonana (talk) 03:29, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment can the billboard be censored out by blurring? JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 22:10, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Times Square, New York (7396755320).jpg

No FoP for 2D works in the United States A1Cafel (talk) 08:36, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think this includes enough elements to be de minimis, but I'll be interested to see what the closing admin thinks. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:55, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. --Krd 16:14, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Times Square New York City FLIKR 2 42nd Street.jpg

No FoP for 2D works in the United States A1Cafel (talk) 08:36, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Really a street scene. Maybe de minimis. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:56, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep de minimis, Sadads (talk) 00:47, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files uploaded by Pesquisa Cênica (talk · contribs)

DW's of a photo, we need VRT and a source for the original

Gbawden (talk) 11:54, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

oi por favor não delete as fotos, pq vc quer deletar? pode me explicar? Pesquisa Cênica (talk) 15:15, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

please do not delete Pesquisa Cênica (talk) 11:58, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:SZ 深圳 Shenzhen 羅湖 Luohu 仙湖植物園 Fairylake Botanical Garden 弘法寺人文佛教博物館 Hongfa Temple Renwen Fojiao Museum staff recruitment post November 2023 R12S 03.jpg

This is a photograph of 2D work, could be copyrighted. Midleading (talk) 13:49, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Maria Redaelli 1.JPG

A mail with the permission to the uploader has been sent, but VRT has never seen it. The copyright holder should send (o forward in this case if we assume GF) the mail to Italian VRT.

Also involved File:Maria Redaelli 1 (2012).JPG Ruthven (msg) 13:59, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files uploaded by YodelingCowboy (talk · contribs)

All of these are still under copyright; I don’t know why anyone ever thought they somehow weren’t. User has a long history of uploading copyvios under the same nonsense rationale (that covers of traditional songs are uncopyrightable which is patently not true)

Dronebogus (talk) 14:31, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files in Category:Election posters in Germany 2009

Election posters are most likely not covered unter COM:FOP#Germany, as they are not permanently displayed in public places, only for the limited time frame around an election. A German High court case got a ruling against the application of the FoP in the substantially comparable case of the Wrapped Reichstag (Bundesgerichtshof, 2002, cf. Verhüllter Reichstag#Bildrechte). At least photographs of people or depictions of concise objects are best seen as copyrighted (precautionay principle). Furthermore, there is already a precedent set in Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Election posters for the Bundestagswahl 2021, several files got deleted on a similar rationale in 2022.

Grand-Duc (talk) 14:38, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep File:PiratenParteiPlakat Patente1.jpg. The cow photo used in the poster is a mirrored/edited version of File:CH cow 2.jpg by User:Dschwen (also attributed as "Daniel Schwen" on the election poster). This is noted in the file description since 2010. See also User_talk:Dschwen/Archive10#Plakat_Piratenpartei, de:Wikipedia:Diskussionen_über_Bilder/Archiv/2009/Sep#kleine_Foto-Bitte and de:Wikipedia_Diskussion:Kurier/Archiv/2009/09,_10#Wahlplakat_aus_der_Wikipedia. The rest is trivial text, and for the logo see Logos of Piratenpartei Deutschland. 2003:E5:373C:E800:4C8B:A3F9:B467:C79C 00:10, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files in Category:Election posters in North Rhine-Westphalia

Election posters are most likely not covered unter COM:FOP#Germany, as they are not permanently displayed in public places, only for the limited time frame around an election. A German High court case got a ruling against the application of the FoP in the substantially comparable case of the Wrapped Reichstag (Bundesgerichtshof, 2002, cf. Verhüllter Reichstag#Bildrechte). At least photographs of people or depictions of concise objects are best seen as copyrighted (precautionay principle). Furthermore, there is already a precedent set in Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Election posters for the Bundestagswahl 2021, several files got deleted on a similar rationale in 2022.

Grand-Duc (talk) 15:11, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Velberter Straße: de minimis, die einzelnen Politiker-Fotos haben eine Auflösung, die eine vernünftige Verwertung nicht zulässt.

Mühlenstraße: das Ganze wird langsam lächerlich. Die beiden Plakate befinden sich am Rand des Fotos, machen nur einen kleinen Teil des Fotos aus und sind aus schrägem Winkel fotografiert. Wenn da das Urheberrecht der Fotografen beeinträchtigt sein soll, dann wird man nächstes Jahr, wenn es in NRW bis zu drei Wahlen geben wird, an Fotos der Innenstädte fast nichts mehr bei Commons hochladen dürfen. Verhältnismäßigkeit ist wohl ein Fremdwort für Dich? Im Fokus (talk) 18:38, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"dann wird man nächstes Jahr, wenn es in NRW bis zu drei Wahlen geben wird, an Fotos der Innenstädte fast nichts mehr bei Commons hochladen dürfen" - das dürfte korrekt sein, solange die Wahlplakate hängen (also für etwa 1 Monat, je nach der Sachlage der Gemeindeverordnungen, wie lange Wahlwerbung angebracht sein darf). Ja, und?

Beim Fotografieren muss man halt die Regeln zu Beiwerk, Panoramafreiheit und Schöpfungshöhe und weiteren Schranken des Urheberrechts im Hinterkopf behalten (eigentlich grundsätzlich empfehlenswert). Commons ist kein Blog, kein Social-Media-Kanal und kein Organ der Tagespresse, wo man mit "Berichterstattung über Tagesereignisse" argumentieren könnte und keine kleine Privathomepage, bei der kaum Reichweite bei der ggf. lizenzwidrig erfolgten öffentlichen Zugänglichmachung oder Wiedergabe (und damit Eingriffe in die Urheberrechte) vorhanden ist. Verhältnismäßigkeit ist gegeben, weil bei File:Mettmann, Mühlenstr. 25.jpg argumentiert werden kann, dass das Hauptmotiv die Häuserfassade ist (und das Wahlplakat am Rande Beiwerk ist, das Bild würde auch ohne Plakat ähnlich aussehen), noch besser geht das dergestalte Argumentieren hier: File:Velbert-Langenberg, Hauptstr. 66, über Eck von rechts, Panorama.jpg (das Plakat ist ziemlich klar Beiwerk zum Hauptmotiv des Schieferhauses). In File:Mettmann, Mühlenstr. 25, schräg von rechts.jpg funktioniert diese Argumentation nicht so gut, weil der Lampenmast mit den Plakaten in der Vordergrund gedrängt erscheint und daher eine motivistische Spannung zu der Fassade aufbaut. Damit ist das kein wegzudenkendes Beiwerk mehr, sondern klarer Bestandteil des Gesamtmotivs. Dass die Gesamtanmutung der Aufnahme die eines schnellen Schnappschusses ist insb. wegen der schiefen Linien und planlos abgeschnittener Gebäude), bei der keine wirklich durchdachte Bildgestaltung zu erkennen ist (eher: "Wie bekomme ich am meisten ins Bild?"), spielt bei der Überlegung, was Beiwerk sein kann, kaum eine Rolle. Wir, als Beiträger zu Commons, haben in meinen Augen eine gewisse Verantwortung für etwaige Nachnutzer. Diese Verantwortung beinhaltet ein lizenzrechtlich sauberes Arbeiten, um keine "Tretminen" zu legen, so dass Commons als seriöse Materialienquelle nutzbar ist. Falls Du dahingehende Anstrengungen für "lächerlich" erachtest, dann ist vielleicht Flickr die bessere Hostingseite für dich. Grüße, Grand-Duc (talk) 19:08, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merkwürdig, da habe Ich doch auch gerade ein Foto mit planlos abgeschnittenem Gebäude gefunden:File:Rostock Margaretenplatz - Heiligengeistkirche.jpg. Aber das war wahrscheinlich auch ein langsamer Schnappschuss. - Das letzte, was bei meinen Foto-Exkursionen meinen Hinterkopf belastet, sind Beiwerk, Panoramafreiheit, Schöpfungshöhe und Schranken des Urheberrechts. Übrigens ist das auch gar nicht nötig, denn man kann das alles noch beim Hochladen nach Commons bedenken -oder man lässt auch dies, denn dann kommt ja Eure Putzkolonne.

Und dann habe ich da anscheinend wieder was falsch verstanden. Ich dachte, gerade während der Wochen oder Monate um den Wahltermin herum dürfte man Fotos mit Wahlplakaten zeigen, erst mit zunehmendem zeitlichen Abstand zur Wahl verlören die Fotos ihre FOP-Berechtigung. Anderenfalls wäre es doch auch merkwürdig, weshalb Ihr nicht schon 2021 ausgeschwärmt seid. Natürlich sind Eure Anstrengungen nicht per se lächerlich, aber in der Stringenz, mit der Ihr sie verfolgt, haben sie für für Alltagskomik empfängliche Gemüter wie meines schon mal diese Wirkung. Da drängen sich Wahlbewerber ihren Mitmenschen auf, indem sie den öffentlichen Raum mit Plakaten zupflastern. Wenn diese dann aber fotografiert werden und durch Veroffentlichung der Fotos die Intention der Bepflasterung unterstützen könnten, dann wird diese Veröffentlichung durch ein Urheberrecht des Fotografen/der Fotografin, den keine Sau/kein Eber kennt, hintertrieben. Wenn das nicht absurd ist ... Und nichts gegen Flickr! (Ist mir völlig unbekannt, es kommen aber immer öfter Bilder von dort nach Commons rüber, müsste Dir das nicht mächtig zu denken geben?) Grüße Im Fokus (talk) 22:27, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notabene: "Wie bekomme ich am meisten ins Bild?" ist manchmal keine so schlechte Strategie. Denn dadurch war hier eine kleine Transformation möglich, die ich erst vor knapp zwei Jahren für mich entdeckt habe, die bei vielen zuvor gemachten Fotos vieler Baudenkmäler aber auch gar nicht möglich gewesen wäre aufgrund der Topographie. Ich habe keine großen fotografischen Ambitionen, mir geht's um das Dokumentarische, von daher komplette Ablichtung des Objekts vor begradigten Fluchtlinien. Ich will hoffen, die angeschnittenen Plakate gelten jetzt als Beiwerk. Das schmale weiße Haus allein wirkt nämlich sehr magersüchtig.

File:Bürgermeisterwahl 2023 Malchow - René Putzar.jpg

Election posters are most likely not covered unter COM:FOP#Germany, as they are not permanently displayed in public places, only for the limited time frame around an election. A German High court case got a ruling against the application of the FoP in the substantially comparable case of the Wrapped Reichstag (Bundesgerichtshof, 2002, cf. Verhüllter Reichstag#Bildrechte). At least photographs of people or depictions of concise objects are best seen as copyrighted (precautionay principle). Furthermore, there is already a precedent set in Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Election posters for the Bundestagswahl 2021, several files got deleted on a similar rationale in 2022. Grand-Duc (talk) 15:18, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I do not follow your evaluation, further more I disagree. This essay "Das Urheberrecht im Wahlkampf" by Betim Neziraj on rights.info exams the conformity of §59 UrhG on taking and publishing pictures of Election posters. It comes to the valid conclusion a public cation is lawful under §59 UrhG. Sumwiki (talk) 08:46, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Betim Neziraj seem to totally disregard the Bundesgerichtshof ruling about the Wrapped Reichstag. At the very least, he does not provide any arguments why this ruling is not applicable. A lot of election posters (at the very least, those with pictures of people) are artworks in the eyes of the law, hence without difference to the Wrapped Reichstag. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 12:50, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Bürgermeisterwahl 2023 Malchow - Michael Meyer.jpg

Election posters are most likely not covered unter COM:FOP#Germany, as they are not permanently displayed in public places, only for the limited time frame around an election. A German High court case got a ruling against the application of the FoP in the substantially comparable case of the Wrapped Reichstag (Bundesgerichtshof, 2002, cf. Verhüllter Reichstag#Bildrechte). At least photographs of people or depictions of concise objects are best seen as copyrighted (precautionay principle). Furthermore, there is already a precedent set in Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Election posters for the Bundestagswahl 2021, several files got deleted on a similar rationale in 2022. Grand-Duc (talk) 15:18, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I do not follow your evaluation, further more I disagree. This essay "Das Urheberrecht im Wahlkampf" by Betim Neziraj on rights.info exams the conformity to § 59 UrhG on taking and publishing pictures of Election posters. This photo in particular shows an election poster in it‘s context - oddly mounted against a wall of a residential building. The election poster is only a minor part of the photograph itself. Sumwiki (talk) 09:00, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

While the author of the linked text, Betim Neziraj, has indeed a professional background in copyright law, he does not deal at all with the contents of the Bundesgerichtshof ruling about the Wrapped Reichstag (as your talk page contains lots of German messages and you provided this picture from a rather small municipality from the north of Berlin, you should be able to understand the German text at Verhüllter Reichstag#Bildrechte). Mr. Neziraj simply states „Da Wahlplakate in der Regel für mehrere Wochen im öffentlichen Raum aufgehängt werden und der öffentlichen Information dienen, gibt es gute Gründe anzunehmen, dass sie als „bleibend“ zu werten sind.“ without further explanation what these "sound reasons" could be. There's at least another opinion by another professional at law that's contrary to applying FoP rules, please refer to Spezial:PermaLink/248438220#Wahlplakate und URV?. We could easily reason that on large billboards, where any advertisements got actually glued to the board, are works permanently fixed in public spaces (and that the artwork gets destroyed when a new printout is affixed, hence fulfilling the requirement of "permanently present for the lifetime of the work"). But this does not hold true for plastic ad panels that are fixed with zipties to lampposts or textile banners similarly presented with non-permanent fixtures. In fact, a local Piratenpartei candidate used the same poster motif (and I surmise, the same posters) for advertising for the European and the state election this year. That's everything else than the FoP requirement of being "permanently located in public spaces". I continue to hold up my opinion of a necessary deletion. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 12:44, 10 September 2024 (UTC) PS. if it suits you better, we could very well use German too![reply]

I am afraid to say that this essay claiming that freedom of panorama applies to election posters under German copyright law is not trustworthy, even though irights.info us usually a great source. Please see this discussion Gnom (talk) 14:10, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files in Category:Election posters for the Kommunalwahl Brandenburg 2014

Election posters are most likely not covered unter COM:FOP#Germany, as they are not permanently displayed in public places, only for the limited time frame around an election. A German High court case got a ruling against the application of the FoP in the substantially comparable case of the Wrapped Reichstag (Bundesgerichtshof, 2002, cf. Verhüllter Reichstag#Bildrechte). At least photographs of people or depictions of concise objects are best seen as copyrighted (precautionay principle). Furthermore, there is already a precedent set in Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Election posters for the Bundestagswahl 2021, several files got deleted on a similar rationale in 2022.

Grand-Duc (talk) 15:21, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keine Schöpfungshöhe. Was soll der Quatsch? Marcus Cyron (talk) 15:27, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Der Panzer und das Flugzeug sind so stilisiert, dass ich die Schöpfungshöhe nach Commons-Maßstäben nicht unbedingt absprechen will. Es sollte zumindest diskutiert werden (und wenn mehrheitlich "keine Schöpfungshöhe" bei den Piktogrammen rauskommt, ist das völlig OK!). Grüße, Grand-Duc (talk) 15:34, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Was Du in den letzten Tagen in diesem Projekt abziehst, nennt man wohl "man on a mission". Stepro (talk) 17:44, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Das Flugzeug Piktogramm findet man wahrscheinlich bei Microsoft Word unter der Schriftart Wingdings. Nakonana (talk) 04:36, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Irregular Webcomic strip 3626.jpg

Photographs of store-bought Lego figures fall under COM:TOYS, per past discussions at Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Lego minifigures. The source comic site only says that:

LEGO® is a registered trademark of the LEGO Group of companies, which does not sponsor, authorise, or endorse this site. This material is presented in accordance with the LEGO® Fair Play Guidelines.

Those guidelines at https://www.lego.com/en-us/legal/notices-and-policies/fair-play?locale=en-us don't appear to say anything about the copyright status of photos of their products, so COM:TOYS would still apply. Belbury (talk) 16:05, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files in Category:Heraldry drawings by Matthias Laurenz Gräff

These are personal drawings of coats of arms that were uploaded by a globally locked user for the purposes of promoting the artist and their family. So the images should be deleted as OOS SPAM.

Adamant1 (talk) 02:46, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Low quality, no sourcing. A09 (talk) 20:46, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The uploader is blocked for good reasons but now he cannot intervene in this different discussion. Some try to delete these files may through an inappropriate discussion. These are sketches of people in historical costumes and events, of which there are no public domain files! There are also coat of arms variants of which there are no public domain images on the Internet. That's why these sketches were uploaded to support something visually. Of course, this images will be deleted at will, since apparently some people may have a larger lobby here. But the artwork is by the artist and is accurate! Maybe there is a good solution?--212.95.5.142 13:25, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If I have wrongly suspected anyone, I of course apologize very much! — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 212.95.5.142 (talk) 13:41, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment for reviewing admin: The IP was blocked as an IP sock of Donald1972. Discard the above vote as votestacking. A09 (talk) 19:33, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

September 10

Files in Category:Statues of Lenin in Vyksa

Unfortunately there's no FOP in Russia for sculptures and it's extremely unlikely the artist of this one has been dead for more then 70 years. So these images should be deleted as COPYVIO unless someone can provide evidence to the contrary.

Adamant1 (talk) 02:31, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The monument was erected in 1927 according to the model of the working iron foundry of the Verkhny Plant of Lavrenty Semenovich Kochnev by the plant workers themselves. The best shift of the blast furnace shop under the leadership of Pavel Stulov, an active Komsomol member, smelted the iron, the mold was made by I. I. Muftelev and I. I. Stulov, the best pourers I. Panteleev with his assistant I. Sukhanov poured the mold. Extremely likely the artist of this monument has been dead for more than 70 years already.

This note concerns the following photos: File:Выкса, памятник В.И. Ленину (1927).JPG, File:Выкса, памятник В.И. Ленину у ДК металлургов.JPG. The other two photographs show another monument. These cases must be considered separately. Olksolo (talk) 17:44, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The sculpture isn't a main object on 2 of 4 images, only images where sculpture is a main object may be protected. MBH 16:33, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The first to images are of the church and the monument to Lenin. Which is why the files have Lenin in their name and the descriptions say "Orthodox Church and Monument to Lenin in Vyksa." So the original photographer clearly meant to photograph the statue and it's obviously an integral part of the images. --Adamant1 (talk) 06:52, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files in Category:Arch of Triumph (Astana)

In most countries, all paintings, sculpture, architecture, text, and other creative works have copyrights which last for 70 years after the death of the creator. An image of a work that is still under copyright is a derivative work, and infringes on the copyright so that we cannot usually keep the image on Commons. In some countries, there is a special exception to the copyright law which allows such images under certain circumstances. We call that exception freedom of panorama (FOP). Unfortunately there is no applicable FOP exception in Kazakhstan.

A1Cafel (talk) 07:38, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files in Category:Flags of the province of Huelva

Disputed by User:Macondo in 2020 as Fictional flag attributed to the province of Huelva, unofficial and completely false. The province, in fact, has a different flag. It is the flag of the maritime captaincy of Huelva with the shield of the province of Huelva. Out of COM:SCOPE if these flags aren't real.

Belbury (talk) 09:06, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Provincia De Huelva.svg is COM:INUSE. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:16, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Closed DRs for other images

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Files uploaded by Victorgrigas (talk · contribs)

COM:DW of artwork.

LGA _talk^edits 23:40, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

These are all public graffiti or mural works, not in a museum or other place, I believe there are free from copyrightVgrigas (talk) 17:35, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Have a read of Commons:Copyright rules by subject matter#Murals, it will explain that murals are copyrighted and as the US has no freedom of panorama for artworks these are not free for use on commons. LGA _talk^edits 22:23, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 16:03, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Files uploaded by Victorgrigas (talk · contribs)

A Public Domain Mark (PDM) here on flickr is incompatible with Common's licensing policies. The copyright owner retains full control over this image and does not give away any rights. Commons can be sued by the copyright owner. PDM is not really a license and therefore is not permitted on Commons except where it can be shown that the image is PD for known reasons such as a US Government image. See this flickr license table, where Commons can generally only take flickr images with Attribution, Attribution-ShareAlike or public domain dedication licenses. With the PDM license, the copyright owner still owns full rights over the image.

Leoboudv (talk) 03:52, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The camera metadata says 'Finally the camera metadata says “@2013 Linda Rae Duchaine”. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 03:55, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Admin Jameslwoodward or Revent will tell you same thing about the reasons the public Domain Mark flickr template license is not accepted on Commons. You can ask them why. Best, --Leoboudv (talk) 03:58, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

keep out of process, make a new DR every year or so. metadata does not trump explicit license. how do you copyright a photo taken in 2017 in 2013? i.e. the wrong date tends to undermine the claim. Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 12:10, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This has to do with the flickr license which is Public Domain Mark. The metadata is just a warning that the copyright owner retains copyright over the images...unless he/she changes the flickr license. A Public Domain Mark (PDM) license on flickr is incompatible with Common's licensing policies because the flickr copyright owner retains full copyright over the images. Please see this Deletion Request for the Admin's clarification: the Public Domain Mark license can be revoked at any time. That's why Commons cannot accept this license. --Leoboudv (talk) 21:23, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment if you cannot nominate these photos the right way don't do it at all. they have a category, nominating by user is sloppy to the point of incompetence.
- it is hard to believe that you would reject the good faith "public domain" declaration of the flickr user. your "licensing policies" do not have a consensus. provide the policy consensus where commons decided on the paradoxical - "public domain is not public domain".
- why don't you consult here Commons:Bureaucrats'_noticeboard#Public_Domain_Mark_.28PDM.29 Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 01:44, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Good faith is not sufficient when the copyright owner has a copyright notice clearly posted in the camera metadata for each photo. There was never any COM:OTRS permission from the copyright owner and so she can launch legal action against Commons at any time. As Admin Woodward stresses, the Public Domain Mark flickr 'license' can be revoked at any time and that Commons cannot accept this license due to this problem. COM:PRP should apply here. The other Admins rejected this license at present so as a non-Admin trusted user I have to follow their decision. --Leoboudv (talk) 09:58, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
PS: This image is PD (under US law) despite the PDM license since it is a US government image but the images under DR are by a private individual. Best, --Leoboudv (talk) 10:06, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

- good faith is sufficient. these are low risk items. there is a far higher chance of copyright vio with an false "own" or "PD-USGov" or FOP germany, than PD uploader. what is the number of DMCA take downs of PD items? is it less than FOP germany? the other admins did not have a consensus, they and you only have your strongly held views unsupported by facts, only an ideology of license purity. we have 300000 items with no metadata, maybe we should improve those licenses and sources, and the existing files with PD, before increasing the standard for new uploads.
- why don't you cleanup the metadata of the USGS image rather than persist using the the broken use of information template? "Photos were taken with a system developed by Dr. Anthony G Gutierrez (Tony.Gutierrez@us.army.mil) and taken by Brooke Alexander, Sue Boo, Heagan Ahmed and Sierra Williams." what makes you think all those people were works for hire? were not some of them contractors? Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 15:00, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Slowking4: That's been discussed before.... Alexander and the others were interns, and so 'employees' under US law. - Revent^talk 19:26, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: When these images are sourced to a US government site, they would be PD if the metadata says US Navy, US Air Force, USGS, etc or generally sourced to a US government site. But when when an account linked to an individual person has a PDM license, it was the Admins who decided to delete the image, not me. I am not an Admin. In this image it says you can contact someone at usgs.gov at the bottom. So its certainly US Government..as in US Geological Survey. --Leoboudv (talk) 19:14, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

you realize how many thousand images have been deleted from NASA website as "contractor"? or even ESA [41]: "Unless we have clear, explicit written/textual, tangible evidence indicating that this file is indeed freely licensed under a Commons compatible license, we cannot host it on Commons" - and some have been deleted and put back [42]. maybe we need an OTRS to USGS to establish who is an employee and who is not?

do not evade responsibility for your deletion nominations. the blithe assumption of US website = US Government is equivalent to flickr uploader used PD tag = PD own. Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 02:31, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, unless the Flickr account owner licenses the images. The public domain mark, and it's use on Flickr, has been discussed repeatedly, multiple places. There is a clear community consensus that we cannot accept it, because it is not a license, and we cannot 'pretend' that people who apply it to their own works are granting a license. - Revent^talk 20:13, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: In this case, the credit line in the camera metadata was given to NASA and the images are sourced to a NASAHQ Photos account. The copyright owner is explicitly named as '(NASA/Bill Ingalls)' which implies that Ingalls did the photography for NASA or NASA gave credit to Ingalls. In the undeletion request, it is clearly stated that "However, per Ingalls' own twitter account, he is a "Project Mgr and Sr NASA Photographer based in Washington, DC, but often found in other corners of the world". So, he is a NASA employee, but does some of his own photography on the side. That is perfectly fine, but he's still an employee, and his NASA work is therefore PD-USGov-NASA." So, Ingalls work is PD.

If you wish to change Common's policies on a completely different issue like Public Domain Mark, this is not the right forum. PDM just Cannot be accepted from a private person's flickr account because the copyright owner, Linda Rae Duchaine here who states a claim of copyright over her images in the camera metadata, can Revoke permission at any time. How can Commons use these images? --Leoboudv (talk) 22:19, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Notice: Public Domain Mark 1.0. What is it, and what are the legal implications?

The tools also differ in terms of their effect when applied to a work. CC0 is legally operative in the sense that when it is applied, it changes the copyright status of the work, effectively relinquishing all copyright and related or neighboring rights worldwide. PDM is not legally operative in any respect – it is intended to function as a label, marking a work that is already free of known copyright restrictions worldwide.
— Creative Commons, https://wiki.creativecommons.org/wiki/PDM_FAQ

It is a statement without any legal effect. The creator [Flickr user] can at any point change their mind and remove the PDM, and that it was previously applied means nothing, since they have not actually given up their rights, or licensed the work. PDM is not a legaly binding release which is non-revocable, which is needed to be stored on Commons. If someone changes a work from PDM to ARR, any use of it by us, or anyone else, is a blatant copyright violation.
— Revent

It is a label. I think so, Creative Commons think so and it clearly says so. It s not a release of copyright. Our discussions if it is similar to other licenses or {{PD-author}} or not, is a non-question, since it is a revocable label. That's it.
— Josve05a

With this announcement Flickr users will be able to choose from among our six standard licenses, our public domain dedication, and they will also be able to mark others’ works that are in the public domain.
— Creative Commons, https://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/45355

(t) Josve05a (c) 22:56, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination - obvious case. --Jcb (talk) 23:07, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Files uploaded by Victorgrigas (talk · contribs)

These files are on Flickr with the 'Public Domain Mark', which is not a valid license for Commons, see Template:Flickr-public domain mark since they can be revoked by the copyright owner at any time. As long as the license is not changed at source, we cannot keep these images.

Leoboudv (talk) 01:57, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

comment these have a category - use visual file change right or not at all. how many times will you append this page confusing the issue?

keep intent of flickr user was public domain. Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 02:09, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: PD Mark images are not accepted on Commons since the copyright owner can revoke the license at any time. This issue has been decided by numerous Administrators to protect Commons from any legal problems. --Leoboudv (talk) 06:57, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
comment you do not have a consensus for "This issue has been decided by numerous Administrators". your "revocable" is a theory only, there is no case where it has been here. there is no DMCA of a PDM. you are making up legal problems where none exist. Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 12:08, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Slowking4: The matter was the subject of a six-month long RFC in 2015, as well as several discussions on VP/C since. The consensus of the wider community has always been that the PDM is not acceptable. - Revent^talk 04:14, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

a bad close is not a consensus - what wider community? i see a clique of deletionist admins who rule by fiat. you dare call it community? this is why commons is hated and you are hated. come to wikimania - then you will see a community, if you dare. Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 04:19, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

vk The is no doubt that the original photographer is the one putting these on Flickr, nor is there doubt that they intend them to be public domain. I have sent an advisory Flickrmail as below. With regard to the claim that a decision was made to "protect Commons from any legal problems", I find this an odd statement as there literally can be no legal problem for either Commons or volunteers who make the upload in good faith. @Leoboudv: could you link to where you have seen this stated? Thanks --Fæ (talk) 12:14, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Women's March photos - https://www.flickr.com/photos/108635822@N02/
Hi,
Many of your Women's March photographs were uploaded to Wikimedia Commons (making them available to use in Wikipedia articles and elsewhere), but were challenged as they used the Public Domain Mark rather than CC-0 or a CC-BY release.
Could you either change the license away from PDM to CC-BY or CC-BY-SA licensing, or just email me back to confirm your intention was the same as a CC-BY release and are happy for the images to be on Wikimedia Commons with this license?
The relevant discussion for deletion was at commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_uploaded_by_Victorgrigas
Thanks,

[Fae]

Dear Fæ

Changed to Delete based on a Flickrmail received to my account this morning - (extract) "I do not want my photos on Wikimedia Commons at this time. I have removed them from Flickr to prevent further confusion." If the links given as sources on these images are followed, they are now '404' pages. --Fæ (talk) 08:24, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It was mentioned in this Deletion Request here and I believe that Jcb and Josve05a have the same understanding. I will be away on Thursday for a seminar. I am following Common's rules by filing this DR and I did not determine the rules on PD Mark. I too was warned not to pass such images some time ago. --Leoboudv (talk) 19:21, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In the referenced DR, PDM was mentioned, but nobody described it as a legal problem for Commons. Though we may gain a consensus for policies to handle the uncertainties, my understanding still is that uploads in good faith pose no tangible legal risk to the uploader, nor to the WMF or Wikimedia Commons project. Simply put, if the Photographer is the Flickrstream owner and they wish to change the license, then there will be an issue of whether the license is revocable or ever meaningful when applied to the photographer's own works. As it would be the copyright holder changing their mind, they would be free to request take-down or deletion, however there never has been a case of a claim of damages going to court for a verifiable PDM license being used to rehost an image, nor is it really conceivable that there ever will be, so long as reusing parties are doing so in good faith. Consequently, we could, say, wait for an indefinite period to see if the Flickrstream owner replies to my email, and evidence of that effort to determine copyright would be sufficient legal protection against future claims; so deleting these files within 7 days may be precautionary but logically and legally is not a necessity. --Fæ (talk) 20:34, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The basic issue is if a license on flickr is revocable as other Commons Admins state then it would be a legal problem for Commons to use it. That is why the other Admins decided not to use PD Mark licensed photos. Of course, you are invited to flickrmail the copyright owner to change the license if you wish to CC BY (Attribution), CC BY SA (Attribution-ShareAlike)or CC zero (public domain dedication) if you wish. I saved some images in the past but there are hundreds of anti-Trump protest images on Commons already. Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 21:37, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

you mean it is revocable like a flickr user can change their CC-BY license? gosh i guess we can confirm the status at upload and move on. why should PDM be any different? there is a higher legal risk of a "FoP Germany", since there has been a case of a DMCA takedown there - unlike PDM. you are arguing about risk with no data whatsoever.

"other Admins decided" - are you saying admins are the deciders, and we just report on what they do? do admins trump consensus? maybe we should revise the process page. maybe the admins should discuss this on a locked page and just inform us what images to keep and delete. Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 23:56, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Once an image passes review with a generic CC-BY, CC BY SA or CC zero license, the image is considered passed for life no matter if the copyright owner changes the license at a later date...unless it is a copyright violation or if there are COM:FOP issues. So, Commons can keep the image forever. This image was definitely CC BY at upload even though it is now CC BY NC SA today at the flickr source in 2017 because it was uploaded in 2005 with a FlickLickr bot...that could only upload freely licensed CC BY images at upload. Hence it is not revocable today and Commons can keep it despite the copyright owners change of license with a NC (Non-Commercial) restriction. With PDM, the license is revocable, so its not really a license--more like a label. The copyright owner can remove the use of that image with a PDM license at any time simply by changing the license to say 'All Rights Reserved.' A PDM license has no legal effect. I think most normal Admins have the same understanding of the problems of using PDM labelled/licensed photos. Thank You and I will be away on most of Thursday in Canada, --Leoboudv (talk) 00:41, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

its a funny thing, the flickr bot also approves PDM such as this one File:Library of congress panel 2140020.jpg. i guess it is not revocable. you have no example where an uploader has changed the "label" - why make stuff up? we have no case law about changing CC-BY licenses, so we do not know the "legal effect" of insisting they are irrevocable. all you have is some tl;dr boilerplate. hey- take all year off, you will not be missed. Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 01:06, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: ~~You would have to ask the flickrbot designer this, not me.~~ Stop being a troll. I won't nominate your image for a DR since its clearly your own image. The flickreview bot never marked your image since you uploaded it with Upload Wizard Extension So, the Upload Wizard Extension bot programmer hasn't clued in that PDM images shouldn't just be passed without review. Lucky for you. As for me, I am a volunteer and I am doing my duty as a marker. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 01:25, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

it is just as much PD as the current case. apparently the admins who decided, have not decided to inform the wizard devs at the WMF to change their allowed licenses, but they screwed up the flickr2commons since that is java. lol. don't leave the barn door unlocked. "duty as a marker" = troll - have you ever taken a picture? why are you here if you have not? Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 01:39, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps the closing Admin who decides this case will decide to send a message to the Upload Wizard Extension programmer about PDM. Or Admin Revent who knows about the PDM issue will close down this 'loophole' as you correctly note. Have a good day, --Leoboudv (talk) 01:49, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Leoboudv: https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T158352 - Revent^talk 20:42, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Revent: Thanks for your reply here. Best, --Leoboudv (talk) 02:09, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Update: According to Fae who flickrmailed the copyright owner, Jillian Sallaway has rejected the use of her PD Mark images on WikiCommons and deleted all of them on her flickr account. --Leoboudv (talk) 07:01, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- yeah maybe we should suspend all transfers from flickr, since uploaders there in general do not consent to the use on commons. Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 12:58, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: We can them nicely if they agree to change the license. But the problem is this set of images is very replacable as there are hundreds of women protesting Trump. If the copyright owner says no and doesn't change a license and make it free, then we cannot use the photo. I have had other people agree to change licenses for their images here Some of these images were taken in the Cairo Museum before this Museum banned all photography in their museum so they are not replacable today. The Egyptians also ban all photography in the tombs of the Valley of the kings today. Best, --Leoboudv (talk) 20:47, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

- no, the problem is, commons is not a safe space that honors personality rights, and people might well doubt good faith reuse. emailing people on a one on one basis is not a way to run an image repository, it is bush league. yeah "very replacable" = "once you're seen one protesting woman you've seen them all. so let's just clean out the category of all shots not in use. and we can always farm flickr for more" you have a somewhat smaller vision of commons, i.e. a walled garden necessary to support wikipedia only. i'm beginning to agree with you, maybe i should take all my uploads to english, and "do not transfer to commons" Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 23:27, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: It was the Admins that decided that Public Domain Mark is too risky. I didn't even know about this decision until I was warned not to mark PDM images. So, I'm just following their decision here. An image doesn't have to be in use on wikipedia to remain on Commons forever. Thanks for your time and Goodbye, --Leoboudv (talk) 23:41, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

it was the admins who closed a discussion against consensus. i'm just not following their corrupt practices here. and you should expect images to go elsewhere forever. Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 00:54, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 22:17, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Files uploaded by Victorgrigas (talk · contribs)

per COM:BLP

大诺史 (Talk/留言/토론/Discussion) 16:28, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

These images are from 1970! Victorgrigas (talk) 16:31, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kept historic photos, don't see any BGLP issues here. Multichill (talk) 20:00, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Files uploaded by Victorgrigas (talk · contribs)

Out of COM:SCOPE unused AI images.

The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 09:12, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The King Trump ones are high-quality caricatures with quite some meaning. This is in contrast to this "caricature of Donald Trump" that people here are seemingly desperate to keep and which is entirely inappropriate, not a caricature, and not useful or educational but out of scope. Prototyperspective (talk) 10:51, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. Personal art and AI art is deemed out of scope. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 14:12, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files uploaded by Stanloona2020 (talk · contribs)

I am unable to verify the CC license claim. The sources I checked make no mention of CC. Is there a blanket release from SFTV I am not aware of?

Gbawden (talk) 10:17, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

License is wrong, but it might fall under {{PD-CAGov}} as its run by a California government (see https://www.sf.gov/departments/san-francisco-government-tv). There are CC videos by SFGovTV, so there might be some confusion as to if all of them were under CC. reppop^talk 21:24, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Jenna Ortega & Melissa Barrera.jpg

https://www.youtube.com/@lalata is a personal channel run by Alex Montiel who seems to have taken the 'Scream VI' video from somewhere else. The channel of the company 'San Diego Red' has another video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qHhGiqwgI8Q from the same source which is not CC-licensed. ArturSik (talk) 11:46, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Jenna Ortega 2023.jpg

https://www.youtube.com/@lalata is a personal channel run by Alex Montiel who seems to have taken the 'Scream VI' video from somewhere else. The channel of the company 'San Diego Red' has another video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qHhGiqwgI8Q from the same source which is not CC-licensed. ArturSik (talk) 11:47, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Jenna Ortega at KCA 2023 cropped.jpg

https://www.youtube.com/@lalata is a personal channel run by Alex Montiel who seems to have taken the 'Scream VI' video from somewhere else. The channel of the company 'San Diego Red' has another video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qHhGiqwgI8Q from the same source which is not CC-licensed. ArturSik (talk) 11:48, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Flag of the Mujahideen Youth Movement.png

Not educationally useful Whitechoccc (talk) 12:15, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files uploaded by 一条草 (talk · contribs)

They are likely copyrighted by RTHK. https://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=993464877345586 https://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=1004060782952662

Mike Rohsopht (talk) 13:29, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Candy Chea 2014.jpg

Likely copyrighted by RTHK. https://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=993464877345586 Mike Rohsopht (talk) 13:31, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Daerahmualimflag.jpg

Fanmade flag, not official. It's being used on pages being written as the flag of the district when the district does not have an official flag. EmpAhmadK (talk) 13:42, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. File is in use. IronGargoyle (talk) 15:47, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Hieuthuhai, 2024.jpg

Copyright violation, no CC license Mickey Đại Phát (talk) 15:16, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ecole des Racettes-Onex-04a.jpg

Possible copyvio: Photograph of a sticker, VRT requested https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Wikimedia_VRT_release_generator CoffeeEngineer (talk) 16:36, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Seems allowable under COM:FOP Switzerland. IronGargoyle (talk) 15:59, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files uploaded by Linyax (talk · contribs)

COM:SPAM, promotional image uploaded by likely company rep; no usage outside wikidata, out of scope

Gnomingstuff (talk) 18:37, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Use on Wikidata qualifies as COM:INUSE and I am not confident that a Wikidata entry is unwarranted in this case. IronGargoyle (talk) 16:06, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Bank of Taiwan Logo.svg

Calligraphy is subject to copyright per COM:TOO Taiwan, Creator is unknown therefore no evidence for {{PD-Taiwan}}. Wcam (talk) 19:10, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The logo has existed at least since 1954, therefore it's copyright had expired under Article 32 of the Copyright Act. —— Eric Liu_（Talk） 12:58, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This calligraphy was created by 王壯為 who died in 1998^[1]^[2]. The work is not PD until 2049. Wcam (talk) 17:59, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

公司logo版權屬於公司法人，不屬於設計師個人。--北極企鵝觀賞團 (talk) 08:53, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
这并不一定如此。根据經濟部智慧財產局：「例如：受雇或者委外的法律關係下，約定著作人為公司或法人組織的情形，就是所謂的法人的著作。……若是自然人創作完成取得著作權後，再另外移轉著作財產權給公司，則還是自然人的著作。」目前尚无法确定本作品属于哪一种情形，依据COM:PCP原则，应当将其视作著作权保护期较长的自然人著作。 Wcam (talk) 14:06, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- - 設計師只是受聘工作。商業務實中沒有企業讓版權外流設計師道理--北極企鵝觀賞團 (talk) 02:24, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files found with Special:Search/incategory:PD-ROC-exempt airport logo

None of the exempt items in {{PD-ROC-exempt}} can describe these images. If a symbol is part of an official document, a verifiable source is needed to prove it.

Wcam (talk) 19:39, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Taoyuan International Airport Seal.svg, clearly PD-textlogo, Taichung International Airport logo.svg and Taoyuan International Airport MRT Logo(Logo Only).svg, probably too? —— Eric Liu_（Talk） 09:35, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think so, as these logos show more complexity and creativity than the "Sunshow" and LV Monogram examples in COM:TOO Taiwan that are not OK. Wcam (talk) 13:45, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Taoyuan International Airport Seal.svg only consists of several rectangles without containing more complex patterns. I think it doesn't exceed the scope of "Sunshow".-- 人人生來平等 TALK 13:58, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I think the logo of Taoyuan Airport and Taoyuan Airport MRT could be kept because these are only simple shapes that describe each logo respectively. However, if these logos were subjected to be deleted, they should be moved to Chinese Wikipedia and set "fair use". (Template:PD-textlogo) Sinsyuan✍️ 08:22, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files in Category:Murals in Belfast

No FOP in NI

Dronebogus (talk) 20:02, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think most of these should be

deleted, but there are a few that might warrant further attention. First, there are some where I think the mural is arguably de minimis, where the photo primarily shows the situation of the mural rather than its content (they would be useful with the murals blurred out):

This one might be below the threshold of originality:

File:Murals in Belfast 2014 001.jpg

These could survive through a combination of de minimis and failing to meet the threshold of originality, since the only major artistic component is a rather bad rendition of the Union Flag:

On the other hand this should be

speedily deleted as a scaled-down duplicate of the one just above:

File:Loyalist mural south Belfast 1981.jpg

Finally, I'm a bit unsure about these. The individual parts look like they're mostly unoriginal or in the public domain through age. The assembly on the wall might be original, but it's also a little three-dimensional (the individual parts are proud of the wall), so maybe it's a sculpture or a work of artistic craftsmanship rather than a graphic work:

--bjh21 (talk) 21:09, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Belfast loyalist mural 3.jpg, File:Jeanne Boleyn sandy row mural.jpg, File:Mural in Loyalist south Belfast 1981.jpg can all be kept. I tried to filter out TOO-below murals but couldn’t catch every single one because the category is overflowing with copyright violations Dronebogus (talk) 08:25, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Same with File:Murals in Belfast 2014 001.jpg. If someone could strike those from the request as removed that would be great Dronebogus (talk) 08:26, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Struck. --bjh21 (talk) 10:29, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Flag of The Islamic State of Iraq.jpg

Fictional flag Whitechoccc (talk) 20:06, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. File is in use. IronGargoyle (talk) 23:48, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files uploaded by Varondán (talk · contribs)

Sculptures installed in an Spanish museum. The uploder likely took the photos, but they are not the copyright holders of these works. They were created after 1980 so they are still protected in Spain (70 years pma).

Günther Frager (talk) 20:27, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hola. Desconozco bastante el funcionamiento de los derechos de autor. Ciertamente soy el autor de estas fotos y son del interior de un museo (aunque una de las esculturas nominadas es anterior a 1980), pero este museo es de entrada totalmente gratuita y permite hacer fotos sin restricciones. Además todas estas esculturas (ninots) formaron parte de una Hoguera (similar a las Fallas de Valencia) y estuvieron expuestas en distintas calles y plazas de la ciudad. Por ejemplo este ninot puede verse expuesto en la calle como parte de una Hoguera en esta foto que lleva años en Commons [43], pero en la actualidad, como puede verse en una de las fotos nominadas, está en el museo [44]. El resto de la Hoguera fue quemada, que es el destino que le espera a todos los ninots, excepto a los que son indultados por votación popular, que son los ahora expuestos en el museo. Un saludo. Varondán (talk) 21:31, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Attacks by ISIS.png

The worst and outdated version of https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Attacks_done_by_or_inspired_by_ISIS.svg Liliiii64 (talk) 20:43, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Azov Battalion and SS Emblems And Symbols.jpg

This image falls under category “Files apparently created and/or uploaded for the purpose of vandalism or attack”. The image description makes inaccurate allegations and falsely relates the Azov logo with a nazi symbol, which even its creator has denied. Olivier101 (talk) 23:32, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. File is in use across multiple projects. IronGargoyle (talk) 04:31, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

September 11

Files in Category:Graffiti in Ecuador

No Freedom of Panorama in Ecuador.

Grandmaster Huon (talk) 04:11, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: For the previously edited files covered in this deletion request that have duplicate deletion notices, it's not worth to remove redundancy as these files will be deleted anyway. Grandmaster Huon (talk) 04:18, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep File:Selección de Colores Aerosol.jpg (which does not depict graffiti itself), File:Quito sculpture - Avenida Brazil at corner with Avenida America.jpg (which has graffiti, but it's so simple as to not be copyrightable), and File:EC-Quito MPD graffiti 15.jpg (which is extremely simple text on a wall). Delete the rest, as they are photographs of copyrightable graffiti and Ecuador has no FOP. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 01:25, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Guide to layout/Gallery pages

This page is redundant with Commons:Galleries and can be merged into it. I prefer all guides and guidelines about one subject to be at one place, so you do not have to search elsewhere for more information (I found out only yesterday that this page exists). In Commons:Guide to layout can a link be added to Commons:Galleries. JopkeB (talk) 04:59, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support I'm actually kind of surprised that Commons:Guide to layout even exists at this point. Everything in it could be deleted or moved to a comparable guideline. --Adamant1 (talk) 05:23, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Since there were no objections in about a month, I have made the changes for the merger and so this guide can be deleted, including the translations. It turns out only one small change was necessary, the rest was already there in some form. --JopkeB (talk) 10:52, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Files in Category:Hazrat Sultan Mosque

The mosque was completed in 2012. There is no freedom of panorama in Kazakhstan, permission from the architect is needed.

A1Cafel (talk) 04:32, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. Ə XPLICIT 13:05, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Files in Category:Hazrat Sultan Mosque

No FOP in Kazakhstan

Prodraxis (talk) 04:04, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 08:11, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files in Category:Hazrat Sultan Mosque

In most countries, all paintings, sculpture, architecture, text, and other creative works have copyrights which last for 70 years after the death of the creator. An image of a work that is still under copyright is a derivative work, and infringes on the copyright so that we cannot usually keep the image on Commons. In some countries, there is a special exception to the copyright law which allows such images under certain circumstances. We call that exception freedom of panorama (FOP). Unfortunately there is no applicable FOP exception in Kazakhstan.

A1Cafel (talk) 05:20, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Someone ought to inform all the Wikipedias and Wikivoyages about this deletion request and give them time to locally upload the photos we're using. Don't delete these files quickly. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:05, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Gaël Segalen.jpg

The publication of this photo is contested by the subject (ticket 2024091010010837 on info-fr file). She says she did not consent to a public dissemination. We have no evidence that the photo was taken in the context of public activities, which would make the subject notorious. Since no Wikipedia article uses this photo and since this person does not seem to be notorious enough for a WP-article, we fall IMHO into the application of WP:BLP JohnNewton8 (talk) 08:48, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files in Category:PLANS Guangxi (LHD-32)

The files are various screenshots of Chinese landing helicopter dock Hainan. While they were published by the China News Service, the watermarks (see e.g. ) clearly stated that they are authored by CCTV-7. While some of the files were kept because both were run by the Chinese government, it should still be reminded that they are still two distinct entities. The fact that CNS is authorized to publish the video, or the fact that both are controlled under the Chinese government, does not mean that they have the authority to license the file. This is especially true when they might slip some third-party works in their usually CC-licensed contents.

Ultimately, it is argued that the {{CC-BY-3.0}} licenses by CNS is null and void, and the files should be deleted without further permission from CCTV.

廣九直通車 (talk) 08:59, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So at the end of the day, the question is that: can you CC-license a work that is not created by you (or one that you do not hold copyright)? This is the case for this deletion request.

Previous deletion requests: 1, 2, 3.

@Holly Cheng: as closing administrator.廣九直通車 (talk) 09:07, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

While there have been cases of government-run Flickr accounts releasing photos under free licenses that they were not authorized to, those were all (to my knowledge) photos taken by private photographers. Here, we have one government agency using photos from a different government agency. If the left hand doesn't know what the right hand is doing, I don't think that's our problem. —holly {chat} 17:57, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My opinion: The videos released by CNS on Youtube are just automatically released with CC BY-SA license, regardless of whether the third-party materials used are actually allowed to use this license. Although CNS and CCTV have the same bigger boss, I don't think their material licenses can be shared. Or what if I use CCTV's original materials (which may not have CC BY-SA license) as the basis for infringement? Therefore, the "unclean" videos released by CNS (including video screenshots) should not be considered CC BY-SA licensed. --Cwek (talk) 01:31, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is the original CCTV video, posted on the "CCTV Military" account on Weibo. [45]。File:两栖攻击舰广西舰训练画面公开-3.png at first. File:两栖攻击舰广西舰训练画面公开-2.png at 00:24. File:两栖攻击舰广西舰训练画面公开-1.png at 01:48. --Cwek (talk) 01:41, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Although Guangxi is very mysterious, there are few images that are publicly available and in compliance with the authorization. After much difficulty, some editors are eager to release them quickly. However, it is better to be careful with such cross-authorized materials. --Cwek (talk) 01:46, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In short:

Delete. If you are capable, go take photos yourself. Or you can look forward to it being put into service as soon as possible, so that when it passes through Japan and other places, the JSDF and the US Navy will definitely be able to take better photos. --Cwek (talk) 01:46, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I fotgot it. IT has been IN SERVICE, and the JSDF has already taken a photo of it once (and it complies with public copyright license). It is a pity that we have to rely on foreign troops to see its appearance. (doge) --Cwek (talk) 09:11, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:PD-Belarus

{{PD-Belarus}} is equal to {{PD-old-50}} (moreover PD-old-50 documentation mentions Belarus directly). There are no any specific term(s) or cases compared with {{PD-Russia}} or {{PD-Ukraine}}. Alex Spade (talk) 09:22, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Might still be good to

Keep it (at least as a redirect) to list it under COM:TAG Belarus as this list is quite handy for a quick overview of the available tags specific and/or relevant to the particular country. Plus, due to the template's name (PD-Belarus), its relevance for Belarus is immediately clear, while it wouldn't even cross my mind to read the detailed description of PD-old-50 when in search of an appropriate tag for a subject/object from Belarus, especially since I'm not very familiar with the exact license regulations in Belarus. So, how would an outsider, who just passed by Commons to randomly upload a single old file from Belarus, know to check PD-old-50 for an appropriate license tag? Even in "Commons:Deletion requests" you often see people nominating Belarus images for deletion "because the author has not been dead for more than 70 years yet" (and then there are people who inform the nominator that it's actually 50 years in Belarus — such nominations are the only reason why I've heard of the unusual Belarusian copyright threshold). The name "Template:PD-Belarus" is definitely more intuitive and easier to remember for Belarus-related files than "Template:PD-old-50". Nakonana (talk) 16:48, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files in Category:Weimar Republic Notgeld of Montabaur

These German Notgeld (emergency money) bills from the 1920s are works of Karl Staudinger, who died in 1962. So they are not in the public domain in Germany yet, and the files should be deleted. They can be restored in 2033.

Rosenzweig τ 09:34, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Stephen Auerbach at the Elvis piano.png

This file was initially tagged by Timtrent as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: This is, or appears to be (from their contributions at enWiki), a picture of the uploader, but there is no evidence that the image is under an acceptable free licence. Ownership or possession of a photo, proprietorship of the equipment used to take the photo, or being the subject of the photo does not equate holding the copyright. The copyright holder is the photographer (i.e. the person who took the photo), rather than the subject (the person who appears in the photo) or the person possessing the photo, unless transferred by operation of law (e.g. inheritance, etc.) or by contract (written and signed by the copyright holder, and explicitly transfers the copyright). Evidence of any transfer of licencing must be sent via COM:VRT Yann (talk) 10:09, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Gardanne-FR-13-mairie-b1.jpg

Demande du téléverseur .C'est la meme image que : Gardanne-FR-13-mairie-a8 François GOGLINS (talk) 10:12, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Het_Beste_Bier_van_Nederland_graphic.png

The source link says copywrited. The Emptiness Machine (talk) 10:52, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This logo is just simple shapes and text, so it doesn’t qualify for copyright protection. Mitsjol (talk) 11:10, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files in Category:Weimar Republic Notgeld of Nördlingen

These German Notgeld (emergency money) bills from the 1920s are works of Oskar Graf, who died in 1958. So they are not in the public domain in Germany yet, and the files should be deleted. They can be restored in 2029.

Rosenzweig τ 11:28, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Pilanpo bodhisattva.jpg

This picture is of a bodhisattva in Cave 401 of the Mogao Caves in Dunhuang[46], and there is no reliable source that it is Pilanpo. Thyj (talk) 11:44, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't mean it should be deleted. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:28, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Although the image is a public domain artwork, but is flipped. And the title and information are wrong. Thyj (talk) 10:29, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Flip it if you like, edit the file description, and request COM:File renaming. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:44, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep PD artwork, descriptions etc. can be easily corrected by every user. -- Herbert Ortner (talk) 18:30, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Files uploaded by Igorkhait (talk · contribs)

User has uploaded multiple press photo and claimed to be the owner. These images are likely from the web as wel.

File:Rostov-Arena1.jpg
File:Central Stadium Yekaterinburg1.jpg
File:Moscow Cityscape Sep2017.jpg
File:Moscow Cityscape2015.jpg
File:Eurasia2017.jpg
File:Naberezhnaya Tower2017.jpg
File:VEGAS retail-entertainment complex.jpg
~~File:Moscow Business Center Jun2017.jpg~~
File:Zaryadye24.jpg

Ytoyoda (talk) 11:28, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Moscow Business Center Jun2017.jpg might be from https://www.flickr.com/photos/pcardo/38306698842 -- Geagea (talk) 09:13, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, corrected the source info for that one. Ytoyoda (talk) 11:36, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Hystrix (talk) 15:53, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Files uploaded by Igorkhait (talk · contribs)

Unlikely to be own work. Small resolution, no metadata and the uploader already has lots of deleted copyright violations.

Didym (talk) 12:01, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Masjid Agung Kubah Kecubung Darurrahman Palangka Raya.jpg

No FoP in Indonesia, new building. Exagren (talk) 12:58, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Zinsfestlegung Graf Ludwig von Arnsberg (StAMes, Best. 1, U3) Inhalt.jpg

File:Zinsfestlegung Graf Ludwig von Arnsberg (StAMes, Best. 1, U3) Inhalt.jpg Stadtarchiv Meschede (talk) 13:20, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Grund für die Löschung ist, dass der Inhalt nicht dem Dateinamen entspricht. Es handelt sich um die Urkunde U7 und nicht um die U3 Stadtarchiv Meschede (talk) 13:38, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and change the name. "The reason for deletion is that the content does not correspond to the file name. This is the U7 certificate and not the U3" --RAN (talk) 21:46, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Maps of country" galleries

These map galleries of countries are strictly redundant to the corresponding atlas pages (Atlas of Cyprus, Atlas of Japan, Atlas of France). So these gallery pages should be merged to the corresponding atlas pages. However, map galleries of country subdivisions can be kept, as long as there are no corresponding atlas pages for them. --Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 14:01, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There are hundreds of countries that have a gallery page "Maps of country X" as wel as "Atlas of country X". Would you merge them all? They might have different purposes, different designs and/or different target groups. Can they not just coexist? Please make first an analysis of the differences before you start such a massive merge.

And why should the maps be merged into the Atlases and not the other way around? JopkeB (talk) 15:58, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If we're going to merge these galleries, "maps of..." certainly seems like the more obvious page name. Omphalographer (talk) 17:50, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Both "maps of ..." and "atlas of ..." are okay, but I prefer the latter, since an atlas is a collection of maps and I'm trying to revive the dormant WikiAtlas project. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 14:10, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

They might have different purposes, different designs and/or different target groups.

@JopkeB: I know there are galleries of specific types of maps by country or region. But I'm concerned with the general "maps of <country>" pages, which I feel is redundant to "atlas of <country>" pages. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 14:05, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Another aspect that should be included in an analysis: perhaps the Atlas galleries are subjected to a strict format, while the Maps galleries may offer more freedom, depending on the available images? JopkeB (talk) 04:11, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@JopkeB: I think the atlas galleries don't always have to follow a strict format to list images. For example, in Atlas of West Bengal, I used the <gallery> tag for the locator maps of divisions/districts of West Bengal, which is much better than the prescribed {{Left}} template in this case. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 14:08, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is still do not see an analysis of the differences between "Atlas of country X" and "Maps of country X", so I still do not know what the consequences will be if they are merged. --JopkeB (talk) 15:25, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Jammu and Kashmir Awami Ittehad Party logo.png

Taken from copyrighted website https://awamiithadpartyjk.com/ Jmcgnh (talk) 15:28, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Should be OK per COM:TOO India. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:34, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I had asked them physically if I am allowed to use it let me get written proof Sarim Wani (talk) 10:59, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:BSicon cL.svg

Irregular dimensions compared to typical BSicon files, not used in any RDT Hotdog with ketchup (talk) 15:30, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Geometry arbelos r= 2÷3.svg

The file has to be downlaoded to be seen. The file looks flawed on the preview. The artist desires to remove the unintentional appearance. Hare Plotter (talk) 16:04, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Plemiona Elfów.svg

Głosowanie

Delete Naruszenie praw autorskich. Zastosowany podział elfów i graficzne przedstawienie jest identyczne jak w polskich wydaniach "Silmarillionu". Posiadam takie z 1985 roku, na potrzeby tej sprawy mogę udostępnić. Kriis bis (talk) 17:18, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Oskarżenia są kompletnie bezpodstawne. Tak jak zaznaczyłem to w opisie, bazowałem na Silmarillionie z 2015 roku wydawnictwa Amber (zarówno na schemacie, jak i na treści tego tytułu) i schemat w nim zawarty nie jest ani trochę podobny do mojej pracy (również mogę udostępnić), ba brakuje w nim Minyarów, Tatyarów, Nalyarów, Falmarich, Amanyarów i Avamanyarów. Bazowałem także na pliku Sundering of the Elves-en.svg, od którego również moja praca jest zupełnie inna. Następnie poprawki w schemacie nanoszone były zgodnie z dyskusją w zgłoszeniu do InM,na podstawie uwag @Chrumps, @Tar Lócesilion i Mpn Agnaton (talk) 19:02, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Info: Ostatnio znów zacząłem czytać Silmarillion i inne źródła dotyczące plemion elfów, w związku z czym niemal kompletnie przebudowałem diagram, po czym jeszcze bardziej nie ma on nic wspólnego z prostym diagramem, który widnieje w Silmarillionie. Agnaton (talk) 20:25, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Schemat powtarza to, co merytorycznie trzeba powtórzyć, stosuje tę samą logikę, a to nie jest chronione prawem autorskim. Rozumiem argumenty Kriisa, ale sytuację porównałbym do podobieństwa diagramów Venna - w sporym zakresie będą podobne, kiedy muszą w logiczny sposób przedstawiać to samo. Tar Lócesilion (talk) 23:30, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dokładnie, a dodatkowo, jak wspomniałem, schemat w Silmarillionie wygląda inaczej i ma niepełne dane w stosunku do mojej pracy. Agnaton (talk) 07:50, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep wydanie XII, W-wa, 2006, na ostatniej stronie. Widzę grafikę podobną, ale graficznie znacznie prostszą, podpisy podobne, ale jednak inne. Ponadto rozpatrywana grafika bardziej rozbudowana. Mpn (talk) 16:59, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dziękuję! Agnaton (talk) 17:11, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Inne

@Cybularny @Odder @Ankry @Jarekt @Julo @Maire @Masur Hej. Wybaczcie, że tak Was wołam, ale nie wiem do kogo się mogę zgłosić w sprawie zamknięcia tej dyskusji, więc proszę Was o pomoc lub jej zamknięcie. Wydaje mi się, że sprawa jest wyjaśniona, moja praca nijak się ma do prostego schematu, który widnieje w Silmarillionie (myślę, że nawet jakby była identyczna, to ciężko by tu było mówić o naruszeniu praw autorskich, bo ten prościutki diagram w książce nawet chyba nie nosi znamion utworu, a mając na uwadze, że moja praca jest niemal zupełnie inna, to tym bardziej oskarżenia są absurdalne). Dodatkowo ostatnio poświęciłem sporo czasu na ponowną lekturę Silmarillionu i innych źródeł, w konsekwencji czego bardzo rozbudowałem swój schemat (co tym bardziej sprawia, że wniosek o usunięcie pliku nie ma racji bytu) i chciałbym go zgłosić do ilustracji na medal, a to wiszące bezpodstawne oskarżenie mi to blokuje. Proszę o pomoc w rozwiązaniu sprawy. Agnaton (talk) 16:57, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:ARVO- LOGO.png

This file was initially tagged by Grandmaster Huon as Logo. COM:TOO? King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:35, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well COM:TOO US, so

Keep? Grandmaster Huon (talk) 19:47, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Zoetermeer kunstwerk schaal 1-4.jpg

This file was initially tagged by Bertux as Speedy (speedy deletion) and the most recent rationale was: month=September|day=11|year=2024|reason=Author of the depicted work is *not* Wikifrits but Barbara Kletter aka nl:user:Barkle. Barkle is explicitly opposed to this depiction of her work: [D]e foto's zoals deze en deze zijn voor mij inderdaad een probleem, en ik geef geen toestemming, als maker van deze beelden. (The photographs like this and this one are indeed a problem for me, and I do not give permission as the maker of these sculptures.) Vysotsky (talk) 19:53, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Clear keep. Freedom of panorama NL. -- Vysotsky (talk) 19:53, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Barkle has provided new information about the sculpture. It was completed in 1990 and has always been in the Beeldentuin achter Dorpsstraat 7 (Sculpture Garden behind Dorpsstraat 7) which has existed since 1990. According to Barkle it was not public space then.

Zoetermeer municipality states:

U kunt de tuin iedere zondag van 12:00 uur tot 16:00 uur bezoeken. Op andere dagen is de tuin gesloten voor publiek.

De beeldentuin ligt in de parkachtige achtertuin van het rijksmonument 't Oude Huis uit 1872. Voor de Open Monumentendag 1990 zijn 6 kunstwerken speciaal voor de tuin ontworpen als blijvende tentoonstelling.

This translates as:

You can visit the garden each Sunday from 12:00 am to 4:00 pm. At other days the garden is closed to the public.

The sculpture garden is in the parklike backyard of the classified monument 't Oude Huis, built in 1872. For Open Monument Day 1990 six artworks have been designed for a permanent exhibition.

Here is the Google Maps satellite image. The Google marker points to the house Dorpsstraat 7 and the artwork is just below the center of the image I presume. This garden is not visible from outside nowadays and probably was not in 1990.

So the artwork is not in public space nor can the photographer possibly have taken this image from public space. FoP cannot apply → bertux 14:13, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Bertux, The sculpture garden is dismantled. My sculpture is waiting to be replaced. Nowadays the garden is private property. Barkle (talk) 14:20, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The sculpture was not located in a public place, and now it is even a private place. 2A02:A420:25E:4DBB:606C:C48C:1DDC:B99A 16:28, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My Sculpture was not located in a public place, and now it is even a private place. Barkle (talk) 16:32, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Als het inmiddels prive terrein is, kunnen jullie mijn foto beter weghalen. Voor wat betreft "Author of the depicted work": dit verwijst uiteraard naar de maker van de foto, niet naar de kunstenaar. Vandaar dat mijn accountnaam daar staat, en niet die van Barbara. Met vriendelijke groet ~~ Wikifrits (talk) 14:28, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The photo was taken on 23 September 2012, which was a Sunday, during public hours as stated above. IMO, for that day and time, FOP applies. Hence

Keep. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:38, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Xproc-logo-new.jpg

Unlikely to be own work, however maybe freely licensed by author? Leave it to disussion. Jonteemil (talk) 23:11, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Jonteemil. You're correct in that this is not my own work. But I never claimed it was, on the XProc page it says it was created by Bethan Tovey-Walsh. She created it it to be the logo of a public, open source, standard. Usage is free. We use it everywhere in relation to XProc (talks, articles, the xproc.org website, it's even on the front page of my XProc book). I'm not sure how I can *proof* that this is the case. I could bring you in contact with Bethan? Can you help with how to do proof the image freely licensed? ErikSiegel (talk) 06:40, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It says Own work as source, and that is intepreted as you being the author. Please link to where it says that the work is free. Or alternatively make the author release the rights at COM:CONSENT. Jonteemil (talk) 21:22, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Aerial view of the Midway Trailer Park in Midway, Indiana, following the F4 tornado of April 11, 1965.jpg

This file is sourced to a past version of weather.gov, published by the US National Weather Service.

weather.gov hosts a mixture of content created by the US federal government (public domain) and content created by businesses and private individuals (a wide variety of free and unfree licenses).

Copyright and licensing details of such third-party files is usually set out in the image captions.

Unfortunately, this image is no longer published by the NWS on the current version of the page. The past version of the "Photos" tab contains a digital slideshow (no longer functioning) under the heading "Portrait of Disaster". The 'Summary" tab contains a long list of third-party "Credits/References", but it is not clear which (if any) of them might have been the original source of this image.

The copyright status of photos taken in the United States prior to 1989 depends on the date and context of their first publication. As a photo taken in 1965, we need this information to determine whether it's free of copyright or not.

Because we cannot verify that it is (or was ever) in the public domain or available under a free license, we must delete as a precaution unless the precise source and evidence of permission can be found.

Closing admins should familiarise themselves with the evidence and discussions at this RfC when closing this request.

Rlandmann (talk) 23:23, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 02:34, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files uploaded by Barameji2024 (talk · contribs)

Likely copyrighted.

Jonteemil (talk) 23:35, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Anchor, Illinois, 1974 tornado vortices.png

The uploader sourced this file from the website of the US National Weather Service: https://www.weather.gov/ilx/3apr74

The photo was taken in the United States in 1974 and the NWS credits it to celebrated meteorologist w:Ted Fujita, who was an academic and not an employee of a US federal government agency.

The rationale for hosting it on the Commons has been:

a belief when the NWS general website disclaimer states that information on there site is "in the public domain, unless specifically noted otherwise" it necessarily means noted with a formal copyright notice, and that the absence of a formal notice accompanying an image equates to an assertion by the NWS that the image is in the public domain.
a set of terms and conditions used for a time by the NWS Sioux City office for public contributions

However:

There is nothing to connect this image with the Sioux City office (it was published by the Central Illinois office)
A recent analysis of over 200 third-party images has found that whatever the NWS intends by "specifically noted otherwise" in their disclaimer, images that are known to be protected by copyright are routinely published on NWS websites without formal copyright notices, or sometimes without any attribution at all. Very many examples exist, spanning major media outlets, photographers who claim that they never relinquished their rights to their photos, and permissions granted to the NWS in public that did not include release into the public domain. Not a single one of these was published by the NWS with a formal copyright notice.

The most likely conclusion is that the NWS does not intend "specifically noted otherwise" to mean "specifically noted with a formal copyright notice". Alternatively, if that really is the intention of those words, the NWS has deviated from this intention so thoroughly as to render the disclaimer unreliable as an assertion of public domain status.

Copyright of images taken in the United States prior to March 1, 1989 depends on the circumstances of their first publication, rather than when they were actually taken. (see COM:HIRTLE).

There are a variety of ways in which this image might already have entered the public domain via not meeting copyright formalities of the day, but these cannot simply be assumed.

Alternatively, it was first published between 1974 and 1989, and the formalities were correctly observed, this image will enter the public domain somewhere between 2070 and 2085 (95 years after publication) or if first published after March 1, 1989, then in 2059 (70 years after Fujita's death).

Without details of its first publication, we cannot assess the copyright status of this pre-1989 US image and therefore must delete it unless someone can provide this information.

Closing admins should familiarise themselves with the evidence and discussions at this RfC when closing this request.

Rlandmann (talk) 23:38, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – ditto per the dozens of other DRs I’ve !voted on. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 02:35, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

September 12

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Intertoto.svg

Looks like the Italian wiki user copied it from http://www.juventus.com/media/images/internal-pages-images/coppa%20intertoto.jpg Ytoyoda (talk) 17:01, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 09:38, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Intertoto.svg

In the image, I can say that it comes from this Italian Wikipedia account https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Intertoto.svg where it indicates that the drawing comes from the source http://www.juventus.com/media/images/internal-pages-images/coppa%20intertoto.jpg , also use the image on other wikipedia pages in Italian language, it would not be plagiarism but an inspiration, I hope you understand it thanks--LIBRE CONOCIMIENTO (talk) 23:09, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: already deleted. (non-admin closure) --Mdaniels5757 (talk) 18:29, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:Intertoto.svg

Very likely it is hasn't a compatible license; even if it really is "own work", the license applied is that of the logo. Stego (talk) 01:19, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's not exactly the cup (which is visible at File:Juventus FC - Coppa Intertoto UEFA 1999.jpg, and might be have copyright issues), but a version created by MacMoreno based on the cup description. --Ruthven (msg) 07:33, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep I agree with Ruthven, but i'm not fully convinced about the UEFA logo, wich seems copyrighted (e.g. itwiki and dewiki): as a precaution, IMHO it would be better to further simplify the logo, and then keep the image, deleting the older revision. --Arrow303 (talk) 14:06, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Gonfalone Comune Montebuono.PNG

This file was initially tagged by Arrow303 as Dw no source since (dw no source since) Krd 04:30, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Turtle Cove mural - Roger Witter.jpg

No FoP for 2D works in the United States A1Cafel (talk) 04:30, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Did you read the actual license tags? It has nothing to do with FOP, it was made by someone employed by the Bureau of Land Management and uploaded by them. FunkMonk (talk) 07:10, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is painter Roger Witter a federal government officer? Krd 07:31, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

He was hired by the Bureau of Land Management to make it, the organisation that uploaded it to Flickr under that licence, and nothing indicates the employee has to specifically be "a federal government officer" for this tag to apply. FunkMonk (talk) 17:38, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files in Category:Diego Rivera & Frida Kahlo Studio

I am afraid but we will have to delete these photos because they depict protected artworks and photographs displayed in a private museum, where freedom of panorama does not apply.

Gnom (talk) 06:48, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The Museo Casa Estudio Diego Rivera y Frida Kahlo is a government run museum, which means these should be allowable under Mexico's liberal freedom of panorama law (see COM:FOP Mexico). IronGargoyle (talk) 22:32, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The museum is not a lugar publico (public place), as it charges a fee to enter. Gnom (talk) 07:15, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I do not see evidence there that fee charging restricts something from being a public place. One of the points includes "every kind of building used for education" (emphasis mine) which a museum would qualify as. While COM:FOP Mexico notes that some government places (like train stations) restrict photography, this sounds very much like a non-copyright restriction. IronGargoyle (talk) 12:18, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A museum, albeit public, is not a lugar publico within the meaning of the Mexican copyright act. You are quoting from the definition in the Mexican telecommunications act, which does not apply to copyright law. Gnom (talk) 15:36, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You offer no evidence that "lugar publico" is defined differently in Mexican copyright law vs Mexican telecommunications law and it would be a very unusual case if it was. Beyond that, COM:FOP Mexico says that "Government-owned places...have no restrictions against freedom of panorama." before the telecommunications law is even brought up as an extra bit of information. IronGargoyle (talk) 14:41, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A lugar publico is a place that can be freely accessed by anyone. Lacking any better sources, this is how we interpret this term all across Commons. This requirement is not fulfilled for museums that charge an entrance fee. Gnom (talk) 14:54, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No this is absolutely not "how we interpret this term all across Commons"; that's absurd. "Lacking any better sources" is the phrase to note in your reply, as you continue to lack sources. US law for example treats public places very broadly, including places which charge admission and it seems clear from the plain wording of Commons policy that Mexico does the same. I think you are overgeneralizing from other countries which follow a more restrictive interpretation of public places. IronGargoyle (talk) 15:31, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hm, I don't think we can use the United States as a reference point here, because US FOP only applies to architecture in the first place, and not to artworks of any kind (not even those displayed outside). Gnom (talk) 10:10, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The objects protected by US FoP are different, but public place is still a relevant consideration; read the policy and law please. That is not the point I was trying to make though. I was just using the US as an example that shows different countries use different standards for what is a public place. You seem to think there is a Commons-wide rule for what is a public place based on whatever body of law you happen to be most familiar with. IronGargoyle (talk) 15:13, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am happy to be taught otherwise, but if what you are saying is correct, then we could suddenly upload all artworks displayed in all government-run museums within Mexico. That would be quite a deviation from the current practice on Commons, wouldn't it? I suppose what we need is a more reliable source of what is a public place under Mexican copyright law. Gnom (talk) 15:24, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I do not see any obvious cases from Mexican government museums at Category:Mexican FOP cases/deleted, so this is not a precedent-breaking issue. IronGargoyle (talk) 17:17, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To add on to my earlier comment, this case seems to agree with my take on the situation here. IronGargoyle (talk) 19:32, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:RuthSelfPortrait.png

If it's a self-portrait by the late Ruth Rogers-Altmann, who died in 2015, a permission by her (resp. her heirs) is required and it's not "own work" by uploader. -- Túrelio (talk) 09:20, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Could be {{PD-US-no notice}} or {{PD-US-not renewed}}. Yann (talk) 22:58, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Pastoor van Arskerk Den Haag (1.1).jpg

Scan from a book or other publication (see EXIF). As it's an aerial image, it's highly unlikely that the uploader has made this photo themself. Spinster (talk) 09:48, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Photo by Leuk2 1970-71, from a gallery of a residential tower (see Google Maps). 13:53, 22 September 2024 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leuk2 (talk • contribs) 11:58, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Photographer: Arnulf Lüchinger (=Leuk2), see book "Strukturalismus in Architektur und Städtebau", page 143. 12:30, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As photographer and uploader seem to be identical, this file can be kept. Duplicate version (the other file) can be deleted. Vysotsky (talk) 15:46, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Pastoor van Arskerk Den Haag (01).jpg

Scan from a book or other publication (see EXIF). As it's an aerial image, it's highly unlikely that the uploader has made this photo themself. Spinster (talk) 09:48, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Photographer: Arnulf Lüchinger (=Leuk2), see book "Strukturalismus in Architektur und Städtebau", page 143. Photo from residential tower. 16:40, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Duplicate with this file. Vysotsky (talk) 15:42, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Pastoor van Arskerk Den Haag (02).jpg

Scan from a book or other publication (see EXIF). No source pointing towards which publication, and no evidence that the uploader is indeed the photographer. Spinster (talk) 09:49, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See in book "Strukturalismus in Architektur und Städtebau" by User:Leuk2, on page 143, about photo on page 109-7. 14:36, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

Photographer: Arnulf Lüchinger (=Leuk2) 12:55, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Protest Tbilisi 21 April 2024 (53987798696).jpg

Copyrighted derivated is still visible in history - meanwhile, the blurred part to circumvent copyrights takes away the entire [political] message of the banner. This is useless crap this way. Labrang (talk) 10:20, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Wondering whether two users are competing on who got the better photo of the protest. See: Commons:Deletion requests/File:2024 Georgian Protests, April 28 (3).jpg. Nakonana (talk) 01:11, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, both photos are from the same photographer (and that's me all right) - see Flickr source.

Uploader of the photo from this nomination User:A1Cafel first nominated for deletion File:2024 Georgian Protests, April 28 (3).jpg for alleged violation of Freedom of Panorama (of an alleged copyrighted item in the protest poster, the drawing - not photo - of Bidzina Ivanishvili). 5 minutes after that nomination User A1Cafel uploaded the photo of this nomination page (File:Protest Tbilisi 21 April 2024 (53987798696).jpg), which actually does contain a photo (and not own drawing) of Ivanishvili and therefore is in violation of FOP. I pointed out this and their double standards. To correct their error / circumvent the rules, they decided to blur out the copyrighted element, thereby rendering the message of the poster useless, and thereby the photo as such here in Commons. Even though according to the license this is fine to do, nobody is going to use this photo. It's incomplete like this. This has nothing to do with competing photos. They're both mine anyways. The blur doesn't add anything to the photo other than rendering it completely useless. Labrang (talk) 21:27, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this image BUT the initial version from "03:42, 12 September 2024" shall be deleted. --Msb (talk) 16:33, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Again, with the blurred object the entire political message has been damaged. There is no value for it, not even "educational value", unless you want to keep it for Georgian language training. I mean really, just delete the photo why keep (political activism) photos that miss the point? Nobody is going to use this photo this way anyways, especially since third parties can just use the unedited and undamaged file directly from Flickr, so why would you want to keep it? It's not even valuable for archiving and history purposes just in case I delete the Flickr original. You guys are really funny. Just delete it. Tons of images are deleted every day, what would be so special to keep this? Why would you want to hang on to it? There are plenty of protest photos by now in this category.Labrang (talk) 16:43, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I maintain that even if the small detail of that poster (it is actually not a banner) has been removed, it is suitable for illustrating the protests there satisfyingly. After all, the protest poster was photographed in such a way that it is shown in the overall setting of the protest: surrounding buildings, protest poster and, above all, other protesters.

It should also be noted that deleting the original version does not mean that the image material is lost forever on Commons. It can be easily restored in the future once the copyright has expired.

BTW: It's not a good idea to verbally attack someone if they disagree with you. -- Msb (talk) 16:56, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Again, nobody is going to use this photo this way (I can predict that and I think you actually are aware of that as well), so why would one maintain the desire to keep it here if an element in the original would violate the rules and cannot simply be cropped out. Rules that are odd in the first place, as anyone in the world can and will use the original from Flickr with the so-called copyrighted element. Of course I won't start a discussion about the rules, that's out of place here, but just to highlight how ~~silly~~ odd it is to rather blur parts to maintain the photo here for rules sake. Nobody will use it. Why cling on to it? What's the big deal?

The sole reason this photo was uploaded to Commons in the first place was because the uploader applied this very same rule to another photo a few minutes prior and then hastily mass-uploaded photos from the same Flickr album without looking properly, ignoring the rules "they" just applied to a photo they nominated for deletion. I, as ~~owner~~ creator of the photo, would not have uploaded this one, and had to point out the rules "they" applied to another photo of the same series minutes earlier. Only after that "they" backtracked and edited hours later the photo, just so they can cling on to a photo. While I am happy enough to see photos deleted if they don't qualify, I see here people who hang on to it like it is something they own and never want to let go, and rather dismember the "artwork" of the protester.

This really is becoming comedic and totally silly. That is not verbally attacking anyone personally here. It's this way of dealing with requests of the ~~owners~~ creators of the original photo that I wonder whether I should contribute to Commons my photos that you (plural, not insult) value so much apparently. I mean, it's just a matter of notching the license slightly just so that it can be used everywhere in the world freely except here.Labrang (talk) 18:23, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as OP. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:16, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please

Delete per COM:POSTER - see Commons:Deletion requests/File:2024 Georgian Protests, April 28 (3).jpg Labrang (talk) 12:24, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

tagging Wdwd. Labrang (talk) 12:24, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What copyrighted items do you see on that image? Msb (talk) 19:08, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Which copyrighted items do you see on the above mentioned (and deleted) poster - which was this poster - and where is the difference with COM:Poster for both items. I also want to learn from the judgement grounds in commons. Labrang (talk) 10:36, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The problem was probably the drawings, which are copyrighted by the creator. The font is not considered worthy of protection. In this picture here, elements worthy of protection have been removed, see its file history. Msb (talk) 11:46, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So street graffiti drawings/stamps are also copyright protected, being put by ordinary citizens just like any random protest poster? Just trying to find consistency here. As for the blurred out parts: this renders the political message useless as explained above and nobody will use the photo like this. The whole point was the presentation of the oligarch in question as a crocodile. Labrang (talk) 16:43, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A graffito is permanently visible (preferably) in a publicly accessible place. The “permanently” is decisive here. It is not a protest poster, it disappears after the demonstration in the private household of the creator (maybe). If you are of the opinion that such a protest poster without this negligible image does not represent any added value for Commons, that it is “out of scope”, then that is a different matter. In any case, there was definitely no copyright infringement with this file. Msb (talk) 15:11, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There was prior to me highlighting to the uploader he/she applied double standards and uploaded the file regardless with the copyright violation. Only after that, the uploader corrected his/her flaw by essentially damaging the political message here. Sure, the picture is now not in so-called violation, but at the same time is essentially useless - the entire world can just move to the original on Flickr and use that. Freely. As I allow that via Flickr. But hey, if Commons community thinks that the commons archive is supposed to hold useless photos, be my guest. ;-) No insult, but just a critical remark on what we are actually doing here. Labrang (talk) 18:25, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

After two months it seems about time to make a decision. --Labrang (talk) 14:49, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Still, COM:POSTER does not apply anymore for this image. Msb (talk) 15:03, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Acetorphine.svg

Wrong double bond geometry. We have File:Acetorphine structure.svg that is a correct version. Marbletan (talk) 13:11, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's clear that it can only be cis (that's your complaint, i suppose), so it does not matter that it is drawn like trans for better style. I don't know what my sources have been 7 years ago, but there are still much drawings of Acetorphine around like this. Itu (talk) 06:42, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ despite appearing as incorrect alkene geometry, but add note to the image-description page about it (and maybe rename too, for clarity). This seems to be an unfortunately a common way of drawing alkene-bridged cyclic structures, especially in morphine-type structures in some contexts. DMacks (talk) 19:36, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

General comment: trans-style in rings is a general topic. There should be an overview page for this instead of handling it only in individual deletion requests. --Itu (talk) 06:48, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, this issue has been discussed multiple times before:
Marbletan (talk) 13:25, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Three thoughts:
1. While it's obviously "not correct", I generally don't think it's bad enough if someone else actually wants to keep it for some reason (my !vote here was based on uploader's preference that it is "better style", with COM:EDUSE allowing *wiki editors to decide what to use even if we think it's not great). But is it in-use?
2. Agree that we should centralize a note about this. Let's think COM:EDUSE here...Do we have a use-case for "something like this"? Sure, as an example of how it's sometimes represented and that it's incorrect. Do we need lots of such examples for this purpose? I don't think so (and EDUSE explicitly agrees). Is this one a good one example for that discussion? No, because there are other style changes that make it hard for non-experts to see that one difference. Do we have a better example?
3. Delete because not only is it non-standard in that regard, but the stereocenter at the tertiary alcohol is also non-standardly drawn.
DMacks (talk) 16:03, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The stereocenter issue may get fixed.

In my first statement i claimed "it can only be cis" ... but right now, i'm no more sure about that.

So this is the point: is it trans or cis? My sources have been File:Acetorphine.png & drugbank (probably https://go.drugbank.com/drugs/DB01469)

And indeed it looks like all formulas in the internet seem to be trans (except the ones from Wikipedia/commons...) ...

So the issue is not about drawing style but indeed real configuration.

And i do not have that knowledge yet.

Obviously i did not made a mistake about the cis-trans issue. Are the sources wrong? --Itu (talk) 22:02, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A trans-cyclohexene is not a reasonable possibility for any stable molecule (see en:cycloalkene). doi:10.1002/jccs.201190048 is about several structurally related compounds, in which a synthesis would be likely to give cis from first principles and an X-ray structure confirms. But even they get casual and in a reaction scheme involving an unrelated section of the molecule switch between the cis and apparent trans diagram style. DMacks (talk) 00:23, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

>German Redaktion Chemie about the topic<
Keep I'm still confused about the issue. However, this kind of drawing is widely used. You should not delete this - because it is still useful. You may overwrite it by uploading an edited version if you feel the need. --Itu (talk) 18:22, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why bother uploading an edited version at *this* name when we already have a usable improved version at another name? DMacks (talk) 23:51, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files uploaded by InfinitiBowie97 (talk · contribs)

User has previously implied that they were uploading images of this basketball player without permission from the photographers. No source cited.

Adeletron 3030 (talk) 14:19, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Not understanding what the issue is here now. I spoke with other admin previously about errors made when uploading images of Darnell. These images on the current page are works of my own, which I was told I am allowed to upload. What other source would I need to provide if these images are my own self works? InfinitiBowie97 (talk) 17:54, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I've been notified that three of the images I uploaded onto Darnell's page have been wrongfully flagged for deletion. I will start by saying that I do know Darnell personally and have taken images of him in the past and recently with my iPhone. I uploaded and shared this info under own works for each image. Previously when I first created this page, I did discuss with other with other Wiki admin that the images I was originally using derived from other news sources, as I did not understand Wiki's image upload practices at the time, and simply thought I was able to just cite the work, not knowing that I had to receive explicit permission. Once Wiki's admins explained the process to me, I sought and received permissions to use two photos that I uploaded onto Commons (these are two FDU photos that I received explicit permission from and have been communicated to Wiki Permissions via email from the copyright holder). However, the three images currently uploaded are own works I have taken myself recently and previously. I initially did not use those as I originally did not feel they were of great quality - however, I decided to upload the old ones and the new one I recently took of him in August after Wiki admin said I can upload own works. How can I remove the deletion request from the three photos currently on his page? Thanks! InfinitiBowie97 (talk) 02:19, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@InfinitiBowie97: Consider following the similar instructions as specified at User_talk:InfinitiBowie97#File_tagging_File:Darnell_Indios.jpg. As these files are low resolution and missing EXIF meta data, please understand the need for Commons to be cautious. Regards. —Bagumba (talk) 01:16, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not delete. The other photographs of Darnell Edge are in the enwiki article. Krok6kola (talk) 23:20, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Davy Jones (Humano).jpg

This file was initially tagged by Grandmaster Huon as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: Derivative work of copyrighted material. Derivative work of copyrighted characters King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:11, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Darth Plagueis el Sabio.jpg

This file was initially tagged by Grandmaster Huon as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: Derivative work of copyrighted material. Derivative work of copyrighted characters King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:12, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Obito-Zetsu.jpg

This file was initially tagged by Grandmaster Huon as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: Derivative work of copyrighted material. Derivative work of copyrighted characters King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:12, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:S. Snape.jpg

This file was initially tagged by Grandmaster Huon as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: Derivative work of copyrighted material. Derivative work of copyrighted characters King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:13, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is it looks a lot like the character in the movie, isn't this a fan art derivative then Prototyperspective (talk) 23:41, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ahsoka Tano.jpg

This file was initially tagged by Grandmaster Huon as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: Derivative work of copyrighted material. Derivative work of copyrighted characters King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:13, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:BUGWUFlierPride.jpg

Unfortunately, there is no freedom of panorama for posters in the US. Permission from the union sent via VTRS would be needed. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 17:42, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I had no idea, damn :( thanks for letting me know about this Pacamah (talk) 22:13, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ellada İlyasqızı.jpg

Şəkilin yerləşdiyi məqalə silinib. Zəhmət olmasa şəkilin özünü də silərdiniz. TahirGuliyev (talk) 18:26, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Heinz Piontek.jpg

Offensichtliche Fehllizenzierung, zum einen sollen der Urheber und die abgebildete Peron identisch sein, es handelt sich aber zweífellos nicht um ein -Selfie, um anderen wird nicht klar, welches Recht der Hochlader hat, dieses Foto hochzuladen und unter eine CC-Lizenz zu stellen

Obvious mislicensing, on the one hand the author and the person depicted are supposed to be identical, but it is undoubtedly not a selfie, on the other hand it is not clear what right the uploader has to upload this photo and place it under a CC licence Lutheraner (talk) 18:59, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Das Foto wurde dem Autor von Anton Hirner zum Upload zur Verfügung gestellt. Anton Hirner verwahrt die Nutzungsrechte sämtlicher Werke von Heinz Piontek.

Weitere Informationen unter https://heinz-piontek.de/impressum Webulrich (talk) 07:49, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Webulrich: In diesem Fall benötigen wir eine Genehmigung per E-Mail von Herrn Hirner. Details, zu verwendender Text, Adresse siehe COM:VRT/de. Gruß --Rosenzweig τ 08:33, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Pery Broad - Auschwitz trial (1964).jpg

This file was already kept in 2016, but it was a procedural keep because of an unwieldy DR. So there is no impediment for a new nomination.

The file was transferred here in 2014 from en.wp, where it was uploaded in 2010 and is still available today as en:File:Perybroad.jpg. It was uploaded there by en:User:Anthraxx56@yahoo.com, who uploaded (at least) three files there, see en:Special:ListFiles/Anthraxx56@yahoo.com. All with a similar credit, Pic by Ryza Jane, BSPSYCH or Pic by Ryza Jane, BSPSYCH grad or Pic by R.J.M, BSPsych. It is completely unclear who this Ryza Jane person is or was and why User:Anthraxx56@yahoo.com would be authorized to upload images provided (?) or taken (?) by this person to en.wp under Creative Commons licenses.

This photo is claimed to have been "photographed in the 60's or 70's". It looks like it was scanned from somewhere. Without more information about source, time, place, author etc. we cannot determine the copyright status of this photo other than that it is apparently not old enough for {{PD-old-assumed}}. So the file should be deleted per the precautionary principle unless convincingly shown to actually be in the public domain or under a free license. Rosenzweig τ 20:28, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Karl Fritzsch at Auschwitz.jpg

The file was transferred here in 2008 from en.wp, where it had been uploaded by en:User:Anthraxx56@yahoo.com with a credit Pic by Ryza Jane Maranan, BSPSYCH 3rd yr. And again: It is completely unclear who this Ryza Jane person is or was and why User:Anthraxx56@yahoo.com would be authorized to upload images provided (?) or taken (?) by this person to en.wp under Creative Commons licenses.

Without more information about source, time, place, author etc. we cannot determine the copyright status of this photo other than that it is apparently not old enough for {{PD-old-assumed}}. So the file should be deleted per the precautionary principle unless convincingly shown to actually be in the public domain or under a free license. Rosenzweig τ 20:36, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Two other Ryza Jane files were already deleted many years ago, see Commons:Deletion requests/Image:KAEichmann RyzaJaneMPics.JPG and Commons:Deletion requests/File:Wilhlem Boger RhyzMarananPix.jpg. --Rosenzweig τ 20:40, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Caribana Toronto 2015 (20416869330).jpg

This file was initially tagged by AntiCompositeBot as no license ... this robot thinks it should over-ride human judgement. I think it is now understood that close to half of flickr contributors honestly think they should apply a public domain mark to their own images, so robots should stop flagging these images for deletion. Geo Swan (talk) 21:12, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

[1] ttps://prima.iprima.cz/zpravodajstvi/26-7-2018-velke-zpravy-kauza-lidovy-dum-i-politicke-strany-nekdy-nerespektuji-rozsudek

[2] ttp://www.cssd.cz/ www.cssd.cz

[3] ttps://tw.news.yahoo.com/%E7%89%8C%E5%8C%BE%E9%A1%8C%E5%AD%97%E8%88%87logo%E8%A8%AD%E8%A8%88-215008775.html

[4] ttps://www.sokaculture.org.tw/exhibition/%E7%8E%8B%E5%A3%AF%E7%82%BA%E6%9B%B8%E6%B3%95%E7%AF%86%E5%88%BB%E5%B1%95

[1]

[2]

[1]

[2]

Commons:Deletion requests/2024/09

September

September 1

Files uploaded by Mhmithun001 (talk · contribs)

September 2

Files in Category:Dajianpang Benzhu Temple

Files in Category:Tomica

Files uploaded by Wildvepr (talk · contribs)

Files in Category:Logos of Copa del Rey

Files in Category:Logos of the UEFA Champions League

Files in Category:FC Basel

Files in Category:SVG logos of Asian Football Confederation

September 3

Files in Category:Postal covers of Ukraine

Iloilo Capitol by User:Patrickroque01 (talk · contribs)

Files uploaded by Aarepilv (talk · contribs)

Files uploaded by Aarepilv (talk · contribs)

Argentine youth team photos

September 4

Files in Category:Pasión de Multitudes exhibition

September 5

Files uploaded by Ženg (talk · contribs)

September 6

Files in Category:Emblem of Goteijūsantai divisions

Files in Category:Emblem of Goteijūsantai divisions

More information

See also

Files uploaded by Azizbek Karimov (talk · contribs)

Files uploaded by Mirmircze (talk · contribs)

New information

Files in Category:International Seabed Authority