Delete This photo was uploaded in 2009. It was the only upload of the account that uploaded it. The source indicates it came from the high school's website, which does not have a license compatible with Commons. There is no evidence that the uploader represents the school or that they are the person who took the photograph. Copyright violation. Hammersoft (talk) 00:13, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A license template which is not well-known and likely does not match requirements of Commons:Licensing.
The page hosting the license is 404 now but an Internet Archive copy of it suggests that some conditions are not acceptable, in particular an arbitrary ban on certain types of uses and users. This ban is almost automatically violated by publishing on Commons, e.g. File:Прапор Дніпрорудного.svg was already indexed by Google (which is a for-profit company with over 1000 employees, while the license strictly prohibits Google to use it: No business run for profit with more than a thousand employees (de-facto or de-jure) may use the Work for any reason.), and quite likely was seen by some machine learning model at least once (which is banned by another term, That prohibition includes processing the Work with machine learning models.) — NickK (talk) 00:15, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It looks as though the source has moved to [1]. After reading: this is unambiguously a non-free license. Not only does it intentionally discriminate against specific reusers and types of use, but the full license also prohibits some commercial uses of the licensed work. Any files licensed with this license will need to be relicensed or deleted as non-free content. Omphalographer (talk) 00:42, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as creator, it was a single-use case experiment, and I didn't understand Commons licencing policy at the time. I am willing to relicense all the files as public domain. ⇒ Zhing-Za, they/them, 19:21, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The file works on OpenShot Editor and contains a landing video. I had checked it during the upload in October 2019. I don't know why it doesn't work anymore. Regards, --Abujoy (talk) 08:30, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
– Keep. The photo is not a derivative work of a copyright-protected portrait, but the journalistic documentation of a political event in a public space in Germany. In this case, both freedom of panorama and the right to depict relative persons of contemporary history apply. --Dirk Bindmann (talk) 08:50, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Claimed own work but file EXIF shows "Copyright holder Veikko Somerpuro Usage terms Ei julkaisuoikeutta ilman lupaa (No publish rights without permission)". VRT permission from Veikko Somerpuro needed. MKFI (talk) 07:40, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a gallery page: with only some kind of history from the beginning of 2016. I have asked on the Talk page for more information or a move to a proper namespace, but did not get any reaction in over a month. There is no link to this page either. There is only a link to a parent category, but that does not give a clue either. JopkeB (talk) 07:41, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Shouldn't have been turned into a DR: obvious case that it needs permission from the credited author, Andrea Breuer. Also, image not found on source website, fails COM:LR. --P 1 9 9✉12:45, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Leaving aside copyright restoration due to the URAA, the death date of Chr. van Bussel is unknown (somewhat surprisingly, since there is quite a lot of information about his work on windmills). We may have to wait until 2061 applying the rules behind {{PD-old-assumed-expired}}. Felix QW (talk) 08:19, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for that information, @Rasbak! My lack of Dutch failed me on my search there, and I added this information to the file. Unfortunately, there is now still the issue of URAA restorations. The document will certainly have been copyrighted in the Netherlands on January 1st, 1996, so it seems like it should be copyrighted in the US until 2036. Since the issue of Dutch copyright has been resolved, we can certainly undelete in 2037 now though. Felix QW (talk) 11:02, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The uploader also has a history of adding “own work” licenses to third-party works and has claimed at least one commercial stock photo as their own, so their understanding of licenses may not be entirely reliable. Adeletron 3030 (talk) 11:19, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Cerium4B If they're different images, why did you remove the "no permissions" tag with instructions to visit their website? But more importantly, recreating someone else's work does not transfer the rights to you. You simply created a derivative work. Adeletron 3030 (talk) 13:23, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
no permission from given author see image and also see metadata who clearly read: Author Jaap Reedijk Copyright holder: Studio Jaap Reedijk Date and time of data generation 20:12, 7 October 2024 Usage terms: Beeld aleen te gebruiken na toestemming fotogaaf Online copyright statement www.jaapreedijk.com Hoyanova (talk) 09:14, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This file was initially tagged by 185.172.241.184 as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: not own work Converted to regular DR to allow for discussion. As the depicted had died in 1910, the image is likely in the PD. However, a bit of research for the author would be welcome. -- Túrelio (talk) 10:13, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Freedom of panorama in France is restricted to non-commercial use, which is not feasible in Wikipedia. All of the statues in here would request artist's permission. Some of the files came with a Flickr verification. In such case, however a cc-by-sa is also illegal on Flickr without the permission of the artist, following French copyright legislation.
La liberté de panorama en France est limitée à un usage non commercial, ce qui n'est pas possible dans Wikipédia. Toutes les statues présentées ici requièrent l'autorisation de l'artiste. Certains fichiers sont accompagnés d'une vérification Flickr. Dans ce cas, un cc-by-sa est également illégal sur Flickr sans l'autorisation de l'artiste, conformément à la législation française sur le droit d'auteur.
To be discussed. First and second image show statues in different states of completion. IMO they fall already under copyright, since the artist's intention already becomes visible. Third one might fall under PD-text. Fourth picture shows essential parts of an almost finished statue. Fifth one shows several completed statues. Mussklprozz (talk) 13:01, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
These images were all sourced from webpages of the US National Weather Service but are the work of third-party photographers. However, we have no evidence that any of these images are in the public domain or available under a free license.
For many years, hosting such images on the Commons was done in good faith under the rationale that:
public submissions to the NWS all entered the public domain and/or
all files hosted on NWS websites were in the public domain unless they carried a formal copyright notice
An extensive review of this rationale in 2024 revealed that neither of these beliefs held up to scrutiny. These findings were confirmed in an RfC conducted from August to October 2024.
Per COM:ONUS it is the responsibility of the person uploading an image to the Commons or anyone arguing for its retention here to provide evidence of permission from the copyright holder. For anyone interested in seeking the permission of the creators to retain these files, I offer, as a head start, the following notes left over from when I investigated them:
Photographer confirmed taking the photo; seemed open to releasing freely, but stopped responding September 22 before finalising. VRT ticket:2024102910005029
All these images were taken in the US after 1989, and therefore automatically protected by copyright at the instant of their creation unless ineligible for some reason. Unless anybody can provide any evidence of ineligibility for copyright, or permission from the respective copyright owners, we must delete all the files listed in this request per COM:PRP because as far as we can tell, they all are protected by copyright. --Rlandmann (talk) 11:05, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Images published in London whose author, Sir Arthur Keith, died in 1955. They are out of copyright in the US, but copyrighted in the UK until 2025 inclusive. Undelete in 2026.
As far as I can tell, the painting is held in a private museum (see https://www.museumprabugeusanulun.org/) and is not the work of the Indonesian government. Please provide more information about the painting so we can verify the license information.
These images were all sourced from webpages of the US National Weather Service but are the work of third-party photographers. However, we have no evidence that any of these images are in the public domain or available under a free license.
For many years, hosting such images on the Commons was done in good faith under the rationale that:
public submissions to the NWS all entered the public domain and/or
all files hosted on NWS websites were in the public domain unless they carried a formal copyright notice
An extensive review of this rationale in 2024 revealed that neither of these beliefs held up to scrutiny. These findings were confirmed in an RfC conducted from August to October 2024.
Per COM:ONUS it is the responsibility of the person uploading an image to the Commons or anyone arguing for its retention here to provide evidence of permission from the copyright holder. For anyone interested in seeking the permission of the creators to retain these files, I offer, as a head start, the following notes left over from when I investigated them:
these two images were part of a famous sequence taken by Scott Beckwith who does not seem to have an online presence.
All these images were taken in the US after 1989, and therefore automatically protected by copyright at the instant of their creation unless ineligible for some reason. Unless anybody can provide any evidence of ineligibility for copyright, or permission from the respective copyright owners, we must delete all the files listed in this request per COM:PRP because as far as we can tell, they all are protected by copyright. --Rlandmann (talk) 11:28, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
These images were all sourced from webpages of the US National Weather Service but are the work of third-party photographers. However, we have no evidence that any of these images are in the public domain or available under a free license.
For many years, hosting such images on the Commons was done in good faith under the rationale that:
public submissions to the NWS all entered the public domain and/or
all files hosted on NWS websites were in the public domain unless they carried a formal copyright notice
An extensive review of this rationale in 2024 revealed that neither of these beliefs held up to scrutiny. These findings were confirmed in an RfC conducted from August to October 2024.
Per COM:ONUS it is the responsibility of the person uploading an image to the Commons or anyone arguing for its retention here to provide evidence of permission from the copyright holder. For anyone interested in seeking the permission of the creators to retain these files, I offer, as a head start, the following notes left over from when I investigated them:
Copyright holder emailed; seemed open to free licensing, but stopped responding October 5 after shown the release template. VRT ticket:2024100110011645
these damage photos were not taken by an NWS employee but by a SKYWARN volunteer
All these images were taken in the US after 1989, and therefore automatically protected by copyright at the instant of their creation unless ineligible for some reason. Unless anybody can provide any evidence of ineligibility for copyright, or permission from the respective copyright owners, we must delete all the files listed in this request per COM:PRP because as far as we can tell, they all are protected by copyright. --Rlandmann (talk) 11:52, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This file was initially tagged by 185.172.241.184 as Logo Converted to regular DR to allow for discussion about whether PD-Textlogo is really applicable here. (The source from where the file was taken, is fully copyrighted). -- Túrelio (talk) 11:55, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A bit of context for anyone reading this. I added this file, which is the logo of a recently created European political party. All other European political parties already have their respective logos on Commons (see here). I therefore had a look at the copyright information available for other logos and used the same one, out of consistency (see, for instance, here). The logo of the ESN does not seem markedly different from any of the other logos in terms of uniqueness or originality.
I am admittedly not an expert in these matters, so I welcome the discussion and advice. My own impression is that it is very common for political parties to have their logos included here, and it would be surprising to have an exception just in this case. Conversely, if this logo was not included (for a good reason), then we might need to reconsider the inclusion of the logos of other political parties (which I would personally find unfortunate).
Delete. PD-textlogo only applies to logos which consist entirely of "simple geometric shapes or text", and the tree in this logo is not a simple geometric shape. The only other EU party logo which comes close in terms of complexity is ACRE (the lion), and that logo was freely licensed by the author. Omphalographer (talk) 18:27, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
At any rate, if this was going to be the consensus, what would be the way forward, getting an email from the ESN saying they agree to the use of their logo on Wikimedia platforms? Julius Schwarz (talk) 19:38, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sadly, that would not be sufficient, as "for-Wikipedia-only"-licenses/permissions are not allowed. If not PD per se, it needs to be one of the COM:L-acceptable licenses. --Túrelio (talk) 19:43, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
These images were all sourced from webpages of the US National Weather Service but are the work of third-party photographers. However, we have no evidence that any of these images are in the public domain or available under a free license.
For many years, hosting such images on the Commons was done in good faith under the rationale that:
public submissions to the NWS all entered the public domain and/or
all files hosted on NWS websites were in the public domain unless they carried a formal copyright notice
An extensive review of this rationale in 2024 revealed that neither of these beliefs held up to scrutiny. These findings were confirmed in an RfC conducted from August to October 2024.
Per COM:ONUS it is the responsibility of the person uploading an image to the Commons or anyone arguing for its retention here to provide evidence of permission from the copyright holder.
All these images were taken in the US after 1989, and therefore automatically protected by copyright at the instant of their creation unless ineligible for some reason. Unless anybody can provide any evidence of ineligibility for copyright, or permission from the respective copyright owners, we must delete all the files listed in this request per COM:PRP because as far as we can tell, they all are protected by copyright. --Rlandmann (talk) 12:11, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Owning a paper or digital copy of an image does not give one the right to freely license it. These need a license from the actual photographer or their heir.
These images were all sourced from webpages of the US National Weather Service but are the work of third-party photographers. However, we have no evidence that any of these images are in the public domain or available under a free license.
For many years, hosting such images on the Commons was done in good faith under the rationale that:
public submissions to the NWS all entered the public domain and/or
all files hosted on NWS websites were in the public domain unless they carried a formal copyright notice
An extensive review of this rationale in 2024 revealed that neither of these beliefs held up to scrutiny. These findings were confirmed in an RfC conducted from August to October 2024.
Per COM:ONUS it is the responsibility of the person uploading an image to the Commons or anyone arguing for its retention here to provide evidence of permission from the copyright holder. For anyone interested in seeking the permission of the creators to retain these files, I offer, as a head start, the following notes left over from when I investigated them:
Map is taken from a PhD thesis published in 1995. Author messaged September 23; no response. VRT ticket:2024102910006153
All these images were taken in the US after 1989, and therefore automatically protected by copyright at the instant of their creation unless ineligible for some reason. Unless anybody can provide any evidence of ineligibility for copyright, or permission from the respective copyright owners, we must delete all the files listed in this request per COM:PRP because as far as we can tell, they all are protected by copyright. --Rlandmann (talk) 12:37, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
These images were all sourced from a webpage of the US National Weather Service but are the work of a named, third-party photographer. However, we have no evidence that any of these images are in the public domain or available under a free license.
For many years, hosting such images on the Commons was done in good faith under the rationale that:
public submissions to the NWS all entered the public domain and/or
all files hosted on NWS websites were in the public domain unless they carried a formal copyright notice
An extensive review of this rationale in 2024 revealed that neither of these beliefs held up to scrutiny. These findings were confirmed in an RfC conducted from August to October 2024.
Per COM:ONUS it is the responsibility of the person uploading an image to the Commons or anyone arguing for its retention here to provide evidence of permission from the copyright holder. For anyone interested in seeking the permission of the creators to retain these files, I offer, as a head start, the following notes left over from when I investigated them:
All these images were taken in the US after 1989, and therefore automatically protected by copyright at the instant of their creation unless ineligible for some reason. Unless anybody can provide any evidence of ineligibility for copyright, or permission from the respective copyright owner, we must delete all the files listed in this request per COM:PRP because as far as we can tell, they all are protected by copyright. --Rlandmann (talk) 12:47, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Information is given as "Source Furnished by the subject Author Ellen Snortland". Ellen Snortland is the subject, but copyright belongs to the photographer. File EXIF shows "Author Christy Linder Copyright holder All Rights Reserved 2017". VRT permission from photographer or proof of copyright transfer from Ellen Snortland is needed. MKFI (talk) 13:14, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Claimed own work but file EXIF shows "Author Matt Cashore Copyright holder University of Notre Dame". VRT permission from University of Notre Dame needed. MKFI (talk) 13:16, 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.
Comment Assuming there's consensus that the twitter bird is protected by copyright (i.e. that it's not too simple to be eligible for protection), several other files in Category:Twitter bird logo should probably also be deleted. File:Social Media and Technology.jpg is an interesting example - in its licensing section, they acknowledge that the Twitter logo is copyrighted, but claim it's allowable as de minimis. But its presence in that image is even more prominent than it is in this one. Colin M (talk) 22:57, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted: I have checked the previous file deleted under the same name and it also had copyrighted icons. And probably the same as here each of them individually on such a big image could have treated as DM but the whole image consists of such copyrighted icons, so, deleted. --rubin16 (talk) 11:14, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Although the twitter-bird is free (Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_in_Category:Twitter_bird_logo) and the facebook logo is PD-textlogo, multiple other icons of "social media apps" (the explicit content and intended use, not de minimis) seem non-free, such as Instagram and Phoster. Compare to File:Social media.png that has only free (of various types) icons to demonstrate how easily a more-free analog can be made. Note that various different images have been at this name over the years. DMacks (talk) 15:57, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The Instagram camera icon seen here (the old skeumorphic icon, not the modern abstract one) is certainly over the threshold of originality. Omphalographer (talk) 18:14, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Derivative work of Memorial to Battle of Siikajoki, sculpture by Finnish visual artist Matti Visanti (Wikidata:Q17384698), died in 1957. Not in PD. No Freedom of Panorama in Finland for sculptures, only buildings. Htm (talk) 16:24, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
NFC, DW, No FoP/out of bounds of FoP. Images contain copyrighted sculpture by a living artist (Sarah Sze), photographed at a temporary exhibition in the United Kingdom (out of bounds of FoP) and in France (no FoP). --19h00s (talk) 17:12, 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.
Das Foto wurde in Innenräumen der Rosebusch Verlassenschaften von mir aufgenommen mit mündlicher Genehmigung der verantwortlichen Person dieser Einrichtung. Vor Tagen wurde ich von der verantwortlichen Person dieser Einrichtung gebeten, die Fotos von den Ausstellungstücken wie auch den (von mir verfassten) Artikel löschen zu lassen. Ich meine, die Person kann darüber bestimmen, dass ihre Gegenstände nicht in Wikimedia veröffentlicht sind. --AxelHH (talk) 17:52, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Das Foto wurde in Innenräumen der Rosebusch Verlassenschaften von mir aufgenommen mit mündlicher Genehmigung der verantwortlichen Person dieser Einrichtung. Vor Tagen wurde ich von der verantwortlichen Person dieser Einrichtung gebeten, die Fotos von den Ausstellungstücken wie auch den (von mir verfassten) Artikel löschen zu lassen. Ich meine, die Person kann darüber bestimmen, dass ihre Gegenstände nicht in Wikimedia veröffentlicht sind. --AxelHH (talk) 17:53, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Das Foto wurde in Innenräumen der Rosebusch Verlassenschaften von mir aufgenommen mit mündlicher Genehmigung der verantwortlichen Person dieser Einrichtung. Vor Tagen wurde ich von der verantwortlichen Person dieser Einrichtung gebeten, die Fotos von den Ausstellungstücken wie auch den (von mir verfassten) Artikel löschen zu lassen. Ich meine, die Person kann darüber bestimmen, dass ihre Gegenstände nicht in Wikimedia veröffentlicht sind. --AxelHH (talk) 17:54, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Subject depicted requested courtesy deletion per ticket:2024102810008859. Unsure if this is a public place or not, maybe uploader can clarify? Either way we should probably delete everything except File:Luise Kempf, Bern 2024 (12).jpg, we don't need all the perspectives.
I added some categories. In Children with hats, for instance, I see similar photos of other kids. I cannot give a good reason why one would delete one of them, and not the others. At least it is in sharp focus, with good colour. JMK (talk) 16:18, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@LutheranerKeep As the uploader of File:Liana Flores @ Troubadour LA 09 09 2024 (54012547009).jpg from where this file was detivated as a crop. The file is licensed with a free license in flickr by the author, so of course the uploader, myself on the original upload to Commons or the uploader of this file, is not as the same as the author of the photo, but the author licensed this file with a CC-By license. If you do not know how thinks work, dont make other people wast their time with your ignorance (ignorância in portuguese as the depicted person is brazilian). Tm (talk) 19:41, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wenn eine Übertragung aus Flickr erfolgt ist aber i.d.R. ein entsprechender Bausdtein bei der Lizenzierung zu setzen - dieser fehlt hier!
Keep We might be having language barrier issues here because I'm not even sure what the problem is. The image is by photographer Justin Higuchi who releases works into Creative Commons via Flickr. The image is licensed under a standard flickr CC licensed. All Higuchi's uploads contain metadata helping the credibility that there are indeed his own work. CeltBrowne (talk) 02:19, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@LutheranerKeep As the uploader. The file is licensed with a free license in flickr by the author, so of course the uploader, me, is not as the same as the author of the photo, but the author licensed this file with a CC-By license. If you do not know how thinks work, dont make other people wast their time with your ignorance (ignorância in portuguese as the depicted person is brazilian). Tm (talk) 19:40, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep We might be having language barrier issues here because I'm not even sure what the problem is. The image is by photographer Justin Higuchi who releases works into Creative Commons via Flickr. The image is licensed under a standard flickr CC licensed. All Higuchi's uploads contain metadata helping the credibility that there are indeed his own work. CeltBrowne (talk) 18:11, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I initially tagged this as "no permission" but the tag was removed by the uploader. This is clearly not an original photo, as it's been converted to a WEBP format, has a low resolution, and has been published elsewhere before the upload to Commons.
If you own the photo, please follow the instructions at COM:VRT to submit a copyright release statement, though I recommend uploading the original high-res JPEG with the metadata intact. Adeletron 3030 (talk) 19:46, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Dieses Bild wurde von mir unter der Vorlage Diese Fotografie eines dreidimensionalen Objekts ist in der Schweiz gemeinfrei (URG Art. 29 Abs. 2bis), weil die Abbildung vor mindestens 50 Jahren erstellt wurde … in der Schweiz hochgeladen. Der Ort der Aufnahme spielt dabei keine Rolle. {{PD-Switzerland-photo-non-individual-50-years}} bezieht sich auf die Umsetzung von europäischen Recht (EU-Recht) das bezüglich Fotografien vor mehreren Jahren beschlossen wurde, um die Handhabung von Bildrechten (im Wesentlichen Fotografien) im Zeitalter des Internets einfacher zu gestalten. Ich weiss, die Schweiz, obschon nicht EU-Mitglied, war eines der ersten Länder, das diese EU-Gesetzgebung in Landesrecht umgewandelt hat; Deutschland als Beispiel war aber auch rasch dabei Bundesministerium für Justiz, Gesetz über Urheberrecht und verwandte Schutzrechte (Urheberrechtsgesetz) § 72 Lichtbilder. Warum es in der Wikimedia nicht längst entsprechende Europäische Vorlage gibt, ist für mich nicht nachvollziehbar und wohl allein dem Sachverhalt zuzuschreiben, dass es dazu ein Benutzer mit Administratorenrechten braucht der das auch macht. Es bleibt somit nichts anderes übrig als die Schweizer Vorlage zu benutzen; es gibt keinen Grund, dieses Bild zu löschen.--Transfer 2015 (talk) 09:43, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
English translation slightly abridged: This image was uploaded by me under {{PD-Switzerland-photo-non-individual-50-years}} in Switzerland. The place where the image was taken is irrelevant. {{PD-Switzerland-photo-non-individual-50-years}} refers to the implementation of European Union law that was adopted several years ago with regard to photographs in order to simplify the handling of image rights (essentially photographs) in the age of the internet. I know that Switzerland, although not a member of the EU, was one of the first countries to convert this EU legislation into national law; Germany, as an example, was also quick to do so Bundesministerium für Justiz, Gesetz über Urheberrecht und verwandte Schutzrechte (Urheberrechtsgesetz) § 72 Lichtbilder. I cannot understand why there has not been a corresponding European template in Wikimedia for a long time and it is probably only due to the fact that a user with administrator rights is required to do this. There is therefore no alternative but to use the Swiss template; there is no reason to delete this image.
Both non-free work and per COM:NOTEDU: Historically inaccurate flag, the Khmer Empire had no flag. This flag just takes the Cambodian tricolour and adds an edited version of Cambodia's CoA on it. TansoShoshen (talk) 22:05, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
These images were both sourced from webpages of the US National Weather Service but are the work of third-party photographers. However, we have no evidence that either of these images are in the public domain or available under a free license.
For many years, hosting such images on the Commons was done in good faith under the rationale that:
public submissions to the NWS all entered the public domain and/or
all files hosted on NWS websites were in the public domain unless they carried a formal copyright notice
An extensive review of this rationale in 2024 revealed that neither of these beliefs held up to scrutiny. These findings were confirmed in an RfC conducted from August to October 2024.
Per COM:ONUS it is the responsibility of the person uploading an image to the Commons or anyone arguing for its retention here to provide evidence of permission from the copyright holder. For anyone interested in seeking the permission of the creators to retain these files, I offer, as a head start, the following notes left over from when I investigated them:
Both these images were taken in the US after 1989, and therefore automatically protected by copyright at the instant of their creation unless ineligible for some reason. Unless anybody can provide any evidence of ineligibility for copyright, or permission from the respective copyright owners, we must delete both the files listed in this request per COM:PRP because as far as we can tell, they both are protected by copyright. --Rlandmann (talk) 22:20, 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.
These images were both sourced from webpages of the US National Weather Service but are the work of third-party photographers. However, we have no evidence that either of these images are in the public domain or available under a free license.
For many years, hosting such images on the Commons was done in good faith under the rationale that:
public submissions to the NWS all entered the public domain and/or
all files hosted on NWS websites were in the public domain unless they carried a formal copyright notice
An extensive review of this rationale in 2024 revealed that neither of these beliefs held up to scrutiny. These findings were confirmed in an RfC conducted from August to October 2024.
Per COM:ONUS it is the responsibility of the person uploading an image to the Commons or anyone arguing for its retention here to provide evidence of permission from the copyright holder. For anyone interested in seeking the permission of the creators to retain these files, I offer, as a head start, the following notes left over from when I investigated them:
Contacted the TV station that owns this image via their web contact form; no response. No VRT ticket for this one.
Both these images were taken in the US after 1989, and therefore automatically protected by copyright at the instant of their creation unless ineligible for some reason. Unless anybody can provide any evidence of ineligibility for copyright, or permission from the respective copyright owners, we must delete both the files listed in this request per COM:PRP because as far as we can tell, they both are protected by copyright. --Rlandmann (talk) 22:32, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Third-party photos hosted by the NWS uploaded by Southern Illinois SKYWARN
These images were both sourced from webpages of the US National Weather Service but are the work of third-party photographers. However, we have no evidence that either of these images are in the public domain or available under a free license.
For many years, hosting such images on the Commons was done in good faith under the rationale that:
public submissions to the NWS all entered the public domain and/or
all files hosted on NWS websites were in the public domain unless they carried a formal copyright notice
An extensive review of this rationale in 2024 revealed that neither of these beliefs held up to scrutiny. These findings were confirmed in an RfC conducted from August to October 2024.
Per COM:ONUS it is the responsibility of the person uploading an image to the Commons or anyone arguing for its retention here to provide evidence of permission from the copyright holder.
Both these images were taken in the US after 1989, and therefore automatically protected by copyright at the instant of their creation unless ineligible for some reason. Unless anybody can provide any evidence of ineligibility for copyright, or permission from the respective copyright owners, we must delete both the files listed in this request per COM:PRP because as far as we can tell, they both are protected by copyright. --Rlandmann (talk) 22:41, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
ho caricato la nuova mappa "File:Referendum propositivi Provincia autonoma di Bolzano 2009 media Affluenza.svg" che rende superflue le diverse mappe delle affluenze per ogni quesito. Lumok30 (talk) 23:18, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
ho caricato la nuova mappa "File:Referendum propositivi Provincia autonoma di Bolzano 2009 media Affluenza.svg" che rende superflue le diverse mappe delle affluenze per ogni quesito. Lumok30 (talk) 23:19, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
ho caricato la nuova mappa "File:Referendum propositivi Provincia autonoma di Bolzano 2009 media Affluenza.svg" che rende superflue le diverse mappe delle affluenze per ogni quesito. Lumok30 (talk) 23:19, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
ho caricato la nuova mappa "File:Referendum propositivi Provincia autonoma di Bolzano 2009 media Affluenza.svg" che rende superflue le diverse mappe delle affluenze per ogni quesito. Lumok30 (talk) 23:19, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
ho caricato la nuova mappa "File:Referendum propositivi Provincia autonoma di Bolzano 2009 media Affluenza.svg" che rende superflue le diverse mappe delle affluenze per ogni quesito. Lumok30 (talk) 23:20, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This photo was uploaded in 2009. It was the only upload of the account that uploaded it. The source indicates it came from the high school's website, which does not have a license compatible with Commons. There is no evidence that the uploader represents the school or that they are the person who took the photograph. Copyright violation. Hammersoft (talk) 00:13, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
Keep Simple information (lines of levels of floods with dates); no copyright violation. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 00:49, 30 October 2024 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_1.png){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_by_Maurice_de_Vlaminck_-_Museo_Soumaya_-_Mexico_2024.jpg){kind=link}
_by_Maurice_de_Vlaminck_-_Museo_Soumaya_-_Mexico_2024.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_(cropped).jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
,_1967.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_Brittany_(48582245731).jpg){kind=link}
_Brittany_(48582251836).jpg){kind=link}
_Brittany_(48582254886).jpg){kind=link}
_Brittany_(48582285406).jpg){kind=link}
_Brittany_(48582297296).jpg){kind=link}
_Brittany_(48582307686).jpg){kind=link}
_Brittany_(48582315671).jpg){kind=link}
_Brittany_(48582320411).jpg){kind=link}
_Brittany_(48582334916).jpg){kind=link}
_Brittany_(48582340871).jpg){kind=link}
_Brittany_(48582350786).jpg){kind=link}
_Brittany_(48582367596).jpg){kind=link}
_Brittany_(48582394822).jpg){kind=link}
_Brittany_(48582403006).jpg){kind=link}
_Brittany_(48582404582).jpg){kind=link}
_Brittany_(48582406601).jpg){kind=link}
_Brittany_(48582421956).jpg){kind=link}
_Brittany_(48582426302).jpg){kind=link}
_Brittany_(48582428216).jpg){kind=link}
_Brittany_(48582431011).jpg){kind=link}
_Brittany_(48582431532).jpg){kind=link}
_Brittany_(48582435787).jpg){kind=link}
_Brittany_(48582438251).jpg){kind=link}
_Brittany_(48582447697).jpg){kind=link}
_Brittany_(48582456607).jpg){kind=link}
_Brittany_(48582465102).jpg){kind=link}
_Brittany_(48582471532).jpg){kind=link}
_Brittany_(48582478217).jpg){kind=link}
_Brittany_(48582491682).jpg){kind=link}
_Brittany_(48582501177).jpg){kind=link}
_Brittany_(48582513427).jpg){kind=link}
_Brittany_(48582538357).jpg){kind=link}
_Brittany_(48582540846).jpg){kind=link}
_Brittany_(48582541092).jpg){kind=link}
_Brittany_(48582544212).jpg){kind=link}
_Brittany_(48582546612).jpg){kind=link}
_Brittany_(48582555517).jpg){kind=link}
_Brittany_(48582558752).jpg){kind=link}
_Brittany_(48582561667).jpg){kind=link}
_Brittany_(48582565542).jpg){kind=link}
_Brittany_(48582572172).jpg){kind=link}
_Brittany_(48582578521).jpg){kind=link}
_Brittany_(48582628311).jpg){kind=link}
_Brittany_(48582635231).jpg){kind=link}
_Brittany_(48582694797).jpg){kind=link}
_Brittany_(48582696712).jpg){kind=link}
_Brittany_(48582699662).jpg){kind=link}
_Brittany_(48582713097).jpg){kind=link}
_Brittany_(48582736587).jpg){kind=link}
_Brittany_(48582765791).jpg){kind=link}
_Brittany_(48582778187).jpg){kind=link}
_Brittany_(48582785042).jpg){kind=link}
_Brittany_(48582788112).jpg){kind=link}
_Brittany_(48582809082).jpg){kind=link}
_Brittany_(48582821141).jpg){kind=link}
_Brittany_(48582823911).jpg){kind=link}
_Brittany_(48582827246).jpg){kind=link}
_Brittany_(48582832291).jpg){kind=link}
_Brittany_(48582839171).jpg){kind=link}
_Brittany_(48582842232).jpg){kind=link}
_Brittany_(48582842376).jpg){kind=link}
_Brittany_(48582855936).jpg){kind=link}
_Brittany_(48582861921).jpg){kind=link}
_Brittany_(48582872861).jpg){kind=link}
_Brittany_(48582917247).jpg){kind=link}
_Brittany_(48582919427).jpg){kind=link}
_Brittany_(48582959167).jpg){kind=link}
_Brittany_(48582982322).jpg){kind=link}
_Brittany_(48582999942).jpg){kind=link}
_Brittany_(48583011332).jpg){kind=link}
_Brittany_(48583033062).jpg){kind=link}
_Brittany_(48583040592).jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.webp){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_1.png){kind=link}
_1.png&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
_1.png){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
Comment Looks like the same or similar image by the same uploader has already been deleted, per Commons:Deletion requests/File:Murales Mancini.jpg. Adeletron 3030 (talk) 15:20, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
.svg){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_by_Maurice_de_Vlaminck_-_Museo_Soumaya_-_Mexico_2024.jpg){kind=link}
_by_Maurice_de_Vlaminck_-_Museo_Soumaya_-_Mexico_2024.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
_by_Maurice_de_Vlaminck_-_Museo_Soumaya_-_Mexico_2024.jpg){kind=link}
_by_Maurice_de_Vlaminck_-_Museo_Soumaya_-_Mexico_2024.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_(cropped).jpg){kind=link}
_(cropped).jpg){kind=link}
_(cropped).jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
_(cropped).jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
,_1967.jpg){kind=link}
,_1967.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
