Commons:Deletion requests/2024/09/06

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
5 September 2024
7 September 2024
Deletion requests on 6 September 2024

September 6

[edit]

Files in Category:Emblem of Goteijūsantai divisions

[edit]

These might be borderline TOO.

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

Files in Category:Emblem of Goteijūsantai divisions

[edit]

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

[edit]

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]

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

File:Niles Park Plaza 1985 tornado.jpg

[edit]

Renominating. I closed a previous listing for this thinking it was resolved, which seems to have been mistaken. [1]. 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:
  1. 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).
  2. 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.
  3. 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:
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:
  1. Is not under dispute
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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,[2] 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!
  1. 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).
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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 [3] "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

[edit]

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)

See also

[edit]


File:King Koroki Mahuta (17346000529).jpg

[edit]

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

[edit]

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

[edit]

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


File:Irancode.png

[edit]

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)

[edit]

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)

[edit]

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

[edit]

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

[edit]

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

[edit]

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

[edit]

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

[edit]

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

[edit]

similr https://www.matsukawa-rui.jp/#top_result eien20 (talk) 12:58, 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:Tom Leighton 2024.jpg

[edit]

Please disregard 2600:4808:8BF1:2300:B0B7:4AAC:DCFF:594 14:19, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: Deletion request disregarded. --Achim55 (talk) 10:31, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Tom Leighton 2024.jpg

[edit]

Not an own work. Go find Akamai Technologies bitte. 186.175.71.199 13:12, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete Google Lens turns up the file on Akamai technologies's site before its upload date on any wikimedia project. All the Best -- Chuck Talk 23:39, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files in Category:International Seabed Authority

[edit]

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

[edit]

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]

File:Truongban noichinh tw nguyen ba thanh.jpg

[edit]

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

File:Thiếu tướng Phan Xuân Tuy.jpg

[edit]

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

File:Social Democratic Party symbol 1993.jpg

[edit]

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

File:Ksor Phuoc Ha.jpg

[edit]

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

File:Z5695052421862 21093a8e8af201462f0b5e363a29de3f.jpg

[edit]

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

[edit]

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

[edit]

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

Published on the Internet prior to Commons [4] 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

[edit]

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

[edit]

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

[edit]

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

File:RSC Anderlecht Logo 1908-1933.png

[edit]

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

File:Gautala 3.jpg

[edit]

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]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/2024/09/06&oldid=950870015"