Commons:Deletion requests/2024/07/10

9 July 2024

11 July 2024

Deletion requests on 10 July 2024

July 10

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 LucaAsher (talk · contribs)

COM:PORN, little to no apparent educational value.

Seawolf35 (talk) 00:16, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Seawolf35,

I appreciate your concern regarding the nomination for deletion of the content I uploaded to Wikimedia. The material addresses feministic perspectives inside homosexuality and the LGBTQ spectrum and aims to educate on societal norms and human sexuality.

According to Wikimedia's guidelines on sexual content (https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Help:Sexual_content), material that is educational, documentary, or artistic is permissible. Furthermore, my content is of high quality with high resolution images and video that increases the quality of education above many already published material. Censorship may hinder important discussions and research in these areas.

I respectfully request these not be deleted, highlighting the content's educational value and being inside Wikimedia's policies.

Thank you for your attention to this matter.

Sincerely, LucaAsherXX (talk) 00:48, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete This seems like F10 material. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 02:50, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Not useful for GSRD people, no educational value, private porn. Taylor 49 (talk) 09:44, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination, 2 kept that seem to be in scope. --Gbawden (talk) 08:31, 29 July 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:Unknown maker, Window Cornice Fragment (NN 70).jpg

To the request of the MUMAQ - Musée des métiers d'art du Québec : authorization denied by the museum. Thomas1313 (talk) 00:18, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 00:54, 23 August 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:Unknown maker, Window Cornice (732-0441.2) 02.jpg

To the request of the MUMAQ - Musée des métiers d'art du Québec : authorization denied by the museum. Thomas1313 (talk) 00:18, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 00:54, 23 August 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:George Roberts, Balusters (732-1262.1-40).jpg

To the request of the MUMAQ - Musée des métiers d'art du Québec : authorization denied by the museum. Thomas1313 (talk) 00:18, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 00:54, 23 August 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:Unknown maker, Window Cornice (732-0441.2) 01.jpg

To the request of the MUMAQ - Musée des métiers d'art du Québec : authorization denied by the museum. Thomas1313 (talk) 00:19, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 00:54, 23 August 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:Padre Antonio Rasco.jpg

Out of scope: Photo of an unnotable person. 0x0a (talk) 00:37, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination and copyvio. --Gbawden (talk) 08:31, 29 July 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:Nun Cho Ga preserved baby woolly mammoth.jpg

No indication this photo is owned by website. FunkMonk (talk) 00:47, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Do not delete. Source of the image is here, a Yukon government website. Here, the Yukon government states "Material on Government of Yukon websites may be printed, copied or reproduced for non-commercial purposes only." The Yukon government is not using and giving permission to reproduce an image they do not own. Factorial (talk) 15:58, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Having reviewed the Commons policy on licensing I now see that this "non-commercial purposes only" license is not accepted. Factorial (talk) 16:19, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 08:31, 29 July 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:Banu khazrun flag.png

Per uploader's own description, this is a purely fictional/imaginary flag. (This minor North African dynasty is also unlikely to have any historically attested flag, for that matter.) Per COM:CV, this is out of scope, not educationally useful. R Prazeres (talk) 00:59, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is no flag for Banu Khazrun Dynasty but This flag is used to refer to the dynasty of Banu Khazron It's tottaly imaginary but we need some flag to To signal this dynasty and i think there is no problem with that. but what's your problem with that Youssef khedhri 2011 (talk) 16:57, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We do not "need" a flag for the topic. This is a database intended for educational purposes (see Commons:Deletion policy#Out of scope). A personal work of fiction is by definition not educational. Moreover, Wikipedia has a core policy on "No original research", which in the same way makes the image inappropriate for any use in this project. R Prazeres (talk) 20:46, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 08:32, 29 July 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:Banu al ward flag.png

Per uploader's own description, this is a purely fictional/imaginary flag. (This semi-obscure North African dynasty is also unlikely to have any historically attested flag, for that matter.) Per COM:CV, this is out of scope, not educationally useful. R Prazeres (talk) 01:01, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is no flag for Banu Al-ward Dynasty but This flag is used to refer to the dynasty of Banu Al-ward It's tottaly imaginary but we need some flag to To signal this dynasty and i think there is no problem with that. but what's your problem with that Youssef khedhri 2011 (talk) 17:25, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Same as my reply at the Banu Khazrun flag ([1]): we do not "need" a flag for the topic. This is a database intended for educational purposes (see Commons:Deletion policy#Out of scope). A personal work of fiction is by definition not educational. Moreover, Wikipedia has a core policy on "No original research", which in the same way makes the image inappropriate for any use in this project. R Prazeres (talk) 20:48, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 08:32, 29 July 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.

Category:Main Street Horseless Carriage

Redundant category for Disneyland Jitney. Jitney is how this specific ride vehicle is named on the official Disney website. Jackdude101 ^talk ^cont 01:13, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 08:32, 29 July 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:George Roberts, Overdoor (Dessus-de-porte) (732-0427.4.1-4).jpg

To the request of the MUMAQ - Musée des métiers d'art du Québec Thomas1313 (talk) 01:26, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: uploader's request. Ruthven (msg) 11:20, 11 July 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:La Chute de la Maison Usher (1928) by Jean Epstein.webm

La Chute de la maison Usher is a French film co-written by Luis Buñuel (1900–1983), so it would be under copyright there until 2054. hinnk (talk) 01:46, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Luis Buñuel is only mentioned as scenarist in fr:La Chute de la maison Usher (film, 1928). Yann (talk) 13:14, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Are we basically saying the same thing? French law specifies both "L'auteur du scénario" and "L'auteur de l'adaptation" as presumed co-authors, so Buñuel's contribution would be included. hinnk (talk) 02:27, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 11:15, 15 July 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:Metgessa

These three images are fantasy portraits of "Metrodora". Metrodora is possibly one of just two ancient phisicians, we have today texts from. But - there's no real evidence, that a Metrodora really had existed. It is more likely a misreading of the miffle age manuscript. How ever, even there really was a Metrodora, we don't heve a portrait of her. So this here is just phantasy. It is just made for Wikimedia projects.

I have now removed the images from all the relevant articles. Some of them were there for a long time - and not as a fantasy portrait, but as if they were a real representation. The representation of a person who probably never existed.

Now, of course, I know the tendency on Commons to keep such images and say that Wikipedia should take care of how it deals with free images. But not even the descriptions in all languages reflect that it is all fake. Worse still: the images are spreading on the Internet via Commons. Number 3 in particular is extremely perfidious because it acts as if it were an old original, a mural. With these images, we are completely counteracting our educational mission - and that is exactly what we have. These images are not even remotely useful for use in a Wikipedia project. That is why I am of the opinion that they must be removed from here, deleted.

Marcus Cyron (talk) 02:25, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per nom. There's simply no basis for these images; they're entirely invented. Omphalographer (talk) 05:02, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as explained by Marcus and Omphalographer. The images not only have no educational or scientific value, they are even dangerously misleading. --DerMaxdorfer (talk) 12:49, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fictional fan art. -- Herbert Ortner (talk) 20:34, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 18:50, 27 July 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:Bill Barnard, 1950s.jpg

copyvio - PD in NZ from at least 2002, but isn't PD in US until 2047 because of URAA TheLoyalOrder (talk) 02:33, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --MB-one (talk) 08:06, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Tauranga Volunteer Fire Brigade presentation, 1960.jpg

copyvio - unclear its even PD in NZ, definitely not PD in US because of URAA issues, license its otherwise released under is non commercial according to source. TheLoyalOrder (talk) 02:38, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A photograph where the creator is unknown taken over 50 years ago is PD in NZ. Kiwichris (talk) 05:43, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

even if so its not PD in US because it has only been PD in NZ since 2010 which is after URAA date. According to Commons:Hirtle_chart it will be PD in US in 2055, 95 years after publication TheLoyalOrder (talk) 09:54, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Which section of the Hirtle chart (which is just a general guide and nothing official or definitive) are you claiming this falls under? Kiwichris (talk) 12:46, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Works Published Abroad Before 1978 -> and then either "Solely published abroad, without compliance with US formalities or republication in the US, and not in the public domain in its home country as of URAA date" or "Published in compliance with all US formalities (notice, and renewal for pre-1964 works)" -> both of which are 95 years. Seems unlikely the Bay of Plenty Times published according to US formalities but it doesnt matter in this case, I also doubt they published in the US at all so can't go by that section in the Hirtle chart. Obviously this chart isnt some legal ruling or law but it exists to help with determining stuff like this on WMC. What justification is there for this to be PD in US otherwise against what the chart says? TheLoyalOrder (talk) 21:35, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I see. Your copyright interpretation is simply based on what you think is unlikely. Your assumption laden opinion is duly noted. Kiwichris (talk) 11:42, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Lionel Wilkinson, 1960.jpg

copyvio - unclear its even PD in NZ, definitely not PD in US because of URAA issues, license its otherwise released under is non commercial according to source. TheLoyalOrder (talk) 02:38, 10 July 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 Scaleboard99 (talk · contribs)

All of these are "alternate" color variants that, as far as I can tell, are purely of the uploader's creation. Out of scope.

The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 02:44, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 19:04, 27 July 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 Scaleboard99 (talk · contribs)

Out of scope: additional nonstandard flag variants.

Omphalographer (talk) 08:18, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Ymblanter (talk) 18:46, 2 August 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:מאגר הגז תמר - אילוסטרציה.jpg

Fictional image of a real place for which an actual photograph can be taken. Does not belong in an encyclopedia / any educational use. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 02:53, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not even a particularly good depiction of an oil platform in the abstract (why does it have six cranes??), let alone of this one in particular. Omphalographer (talk) 19:06, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. -- Geagea (talk) 07:52, 30 July 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:Tamar Gas Field Reproduction.jpg

Fictional image of a real place for which an actual photograph can be taken. Does not belong in an encyclopedia / any educational use. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 02:55, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete AS (Artifical Stupididy) again. Taylor 49 (talk) 09:49, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fictional AI-generated representations of real entities are misleading and outside of COM:SCOPE. Marbletan (talk) 12:25, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Therefore they should be prohibited in COMMONS. 186.173.109.179 12:14, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. not in use. -- Geagea (talk) 07:55, 30 July 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:Jamira Burley (2018).png

This is me and this picture causes embarrassment Jamiraburley (talk) 13:46, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cropped version COM:INUSE. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:42, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Perfectly fine image taken at a public event. IronGargoyle (talk) 20:13, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: Still from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EDrzBqJnVXI&t=50s where it is still online. --Achim55 (talk) 18:08, 9 June 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:Jamira Burley (2018).png

Picture used without permission 2601:643:8780:1E0:3006:222A:40FC:7C6A 03:09, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: no valid reason for deletion, as before. --The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 02:45, 11 July 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:Cooking SQUIRREL GUMBO web.jpg

Squirrel stew stolen from restaurant website. Looks delicious but needs permission to be able to stay in Commons. 186.173.161.56 03:13, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: CSD F1. --The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 02:46, 11 July 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:Blacktail deer Joe Piston web.jpg

Taken from social media. 186.173.161.56 03:20, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Out of scope - unused personal image--Mazbel (Talk) 03:21, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 00:55, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Aerial view LLNL.jpg

The image is marked as a public domain government work but is in fact a work of a US government contractor, namely the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. It is from an old version of the website; the new version includes a CC-BY-NC-SA license, but that is not eligible for Wikipedia, and I have no evidence of a prior less restrictive license, or any at all. Given LLNL goes to the trouble of providing a license, I don't believe its works are public domain under any legal loopholes: therefore, this has to be deleted. Mrfoogles (talk) 04:06, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:LLNL Aerial View.jpg

The image is marked as a public domain government work but is in fact a work of a US government contractor, namely the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. It is from an old version of the website; the new version includes a CC-BY-NC-SA license, but that is not eligible for Wikipedia, and I have no evidence of a prior less restrictive license, or any at all. Given LLNL goes to the trouble of providing a license, I don't believe its works are public domain under any legal loopholes: therefore, this has to be deleted Mrfoogles (talk) 04:06, 10 July 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:Alejandro Santiago Ramires Paredes desvia con éxito el tiro(atajada).jpg

Out of scope - promotional image Mazbel (Talk) 04:31, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 04:40, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:RickRaybio.jpg

This file was initially tagged by Explicit as no permission (No permission since) Krd 04:34, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This file was transfered on en.wikipedia by Gaius Petronius (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Gaius_Petronius). This user can not be reached by email. I sent an email to Rick Ray, but did not get a response. Would be great to ask the author of the photo, Mikayla Mackaness. http://www.mikaylamackaness.com/L/ I haven't tried yet. --Rédacteur Tibet (talk) 08:37, 10 July 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:A mural on 159th at Amsterdam southwest corner.jpg

No FoP for 2D works in the United States A1Cafel (talk) 04:49, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 04:40, 17 July 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:Aerial Playground, Mural.jpg

Similar to UK, no freedom of panorama for "graphic works" in Australia A1Cafel (talk) 04:50, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 04:40, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Kimberly S. Budil - Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory - cropped.jpg

The image is marked as a public domain government work but is in fact a work of a US government contractor, namely the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. It is from an old version of the website; the new version includes a CC-BY-NC-SA license, but that is not eligible for Wikipedia, and I have no evidence of a prior less restrictive license, or any at all. Given LLNL goes to the trouble of providing a license, I don't believe its works are public domain under any legal loopholes: therefore, this has to be deleted Mrfoogles (talk) 04:50, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think that it could be uploaded to Wikipedia under the fair use policy, probably, but not here Mrfoogles (talk) 04:51, 10 July 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:Aurora mural.png

Screenshot from Google Map is copyrighted A1Cafel (talk) 04:51, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination, obvious copyvio. --Rosenzweig τ 11:15, 11 July 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:Bruce Lee will kick your butt. (3826660032).jpg

Similar to UK, no freedom of panorama for "graphic works" in India A1Cafel (talk) 05:00, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 04:40, 17 July 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:Civita, murales dedicato a Skanderberg.jpg

No freedom of panorama in Italy A1Cafel (talk) 05:01, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 04:40, 17 July 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:Coal Car and Mural at McGill Rose Garden.jpg

No FoP for 2D works in the United States A1Cafel (talk) 05:01, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If it's not possible for someone to blur or crop the mural, it seems to make sense to delete. Algorhythms (talk) 18:37, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It would be very easy to crop out the bottom half of the photo, thereby removing enough of the mural for the remainder to probably no longer be a problem. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:54, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. Kept cropped version File:Coal Car at McGill Rose Garden.jpg. --MB-one (talk) 08:11, 29 August 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:Community Spirit.jpg

Similar to UK, no freedom of panorama for "graphic works" in Canada A1Cafel (talk) 05:03, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 04:40, 17 July 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:Decades of Quality Citrus Mural.jpg

No permission from the source A1Cafel (talk) 05:03, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --MB-one (talk) 08:15, 29 August 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:Dylan Thomas mural.jpg

No FoP for "graphic works" in the United Kingdom A1Cafel (talk) 05:04, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have no objection to the image being removed from Wikimedia Commons.

Regards

Richard Manning Billabong25 (talk) 17:59, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --MB-one (talk) 08:15, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Flag of Popular Mobilization Forces.svg

Flag of the PMF, copyrighted in Iraq. This very same flag was deleted from Commons previously, under a different file name. Thespoondragon (talk) 05:58, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not very familiar with flag copyright guidelines but afaik, there is a copyright exception if the file in is small dimension, logo format, which is the case here. Ecrusized (talk) 11:31, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reducing the size of a work does not except it from copyright. You may be thinking of Wikipedia's Non-free content criteria, which does not apply here. Wikimedia Commons only accepts works that are in the public domain or have a compatible license. ArcticSeeress (talk) 20:40, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:OpenSkies logo.jpg

A logo used as a non free image on the wikipedia page, with no evidence of being released under CC 3. It seems unlikely that it is. Mrfoogles (talk) 06:03, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly below TOO. I'm not sure. MB-one (talk) 08:20, 29 August 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:HK KTD KW 觀塘 Kwun Tong Apm shopping mall 戲院 Palace APM Cinemas July 2023 Px3 02.jpg

Similar to UK, no freedom of panorama for "graphic works" in Hong Kong メイド理世 (talk) 06:04, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --MB-one (talk) 08:20, 29 August 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:HK KTD KW 觀塘 Kwun Tong Apm shopping mall 戲院 Palace APM Cinemas July 2023 Px3 03.jpg

Similar to UK, no freedom of panorama for "graphic works" in Hong Kong メイド理世 (talk) 06:04, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --MB-one (talk) 08:20, 29 August 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:HK KTD KW 觀塘 Kwun Tong Apm shopping mall 戲院 Palace APM Cinemas July 2023 Px3 04.jpg

Similar to UK, no freedom of panorama for "graphic works" in Hong Kong メイド理世 (talk) 06:05, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --MB-one (talk) 08:21, 29 August 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:HK KTD KW 觀塘 Kwun Tong Apm shopping mall 戲院 Palace APM Cinemas July 2023 Px3 06.jpg

Similar to UK, no freedom of panorama for "graphic works" in Hong Kong メイド理世 (talk) 06:05, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --MB-one (talk) 08:21, 29 August 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:Жауар және Казан-кулак таңбасы.jpg

Не соотвествует Aladin S1 (talk) 09:42, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep This file is COM:INUSE. —holly {chat} 22:16, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: Not a valid reason to delete. In use. --Bedivere (talk) 03:03, 1 March 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:Жауар және Казан-кулак таңбасы.jpg

Для уточнения Aladin S1 (talk) 12:33, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep COM:INUSE. Google translation: "To be sure". What? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:36, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: In use. --IronGargoyle (talk) 00:13, 23 April 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:Жауар және Казан-кулак таңбасы.jpg

Не актуальна Aladin S1 (talk) 06:12, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Just to add translations of the given deletion rationales so far:

"Does not match" (can be read as: "Is not correct")
"For clarification"
"Not relevant" (or maybe: "Not up to date")

Nakonana (talk) 00:06, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe also worth pointing out that it is the uploader who is requesting deletion. Nakonana (talk) 00:17, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --MB-one (talk) 08:28, 29 August 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.

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:Rafael Paiva, em coletiva de imprensa.jpg

Non-free image, per here. BrazilianDude70 (talk) 06:47, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 13:15, 22 August 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:Antônio Carlos Lemgruber.jpg

Non-free and incorrect image, per here. BrazilianDude70 (talk) 06:49, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 13:15, 22 August 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:Cel Antonio Florencio Pereira do Lago.jpg

Incorrect image (and potentially non-free), per here. BrazilianDude70 (talk) 06:50, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The ID appears to be correct (see this copy of the image which includes the caption from the book Touros à meia-tinta by Geraldo Gonzaga da Costa). The link you found identifies this photo and the one next to it as the same person, Manuel Lopes da Cruz (who based upon the text is actually the person in the third image). Touros à meia-tinta was published in 1974, but the image was taken when Pereira do Lago was commander of the Corpo Militar de Polícia da Corte, which would put its creation between 1885 and 1888. {{PD-Brazil-Photo}} should apply, however the image is unused and poor quality. —Tcr25 (talk) 13:02, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep PD in Brazil and USA, the link provided has the same info as the original image. --RAN (talk) 05:05, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: likely old enough for PD. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 13:16, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Cheek eli Jare Tiihonen esiintyi loppuunmyydyllä Olympiastadionilla Helsingissä 23. elokuuta 2014. Lehtikuva Martti Kainulainen.jpg

Not own work. VRT-permission from the creator/photographer is needed. Estopedist1 (talk) 06:57, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Challenge Tour Champion 2023.jpg

Not own work. VRT-permission from the creator/photographer is needed. Estopedist1 (talk) 06:58, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Layout Hcesar.svg

its a duplicate with weird colors and not used on any page Engettly (talk) 07:00, 10 July 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 Kari1953Le (talk · contribs)

photos ranging from 1972 onwards, clearly scans from the exif, we need VRT to prove ownership. The own work claim is dubious

Gbawden (talk) 07:04, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 00:57, 23 August 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:Hcesar layout - Apple keyboard.png

fake and never use on mac, its a user concept Engettly (talk) 07:08, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 00:57, 23 August 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:Margherita De Risi.jpg

Low quality, tight crop, no exif, unlikely to be own work Gbawden (talk) 07:28, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 04:41, 17 July 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:Hcesar2.0.png

this keyboard is fake, usermade, there is no hcesar 2.0, and not mobile keyboard too Engettly (talk) 07:30, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 00:57, 23 August 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 found with Special:Search/Janet Mbugua

No indication of a free license at source

Gbawden (talk) 07:32, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --MB-one (talk) 08:35, 29 August 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:Lady Rumopa.jpg

Private picture Ladyrumopa (talk) 07:36, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Lady Rumopa.jpg

Please provide a reason and sign it with Ladyrumopa (talk) 23:43, 21 July 2024 (UTC) Ladyrumopa (talk) 23:43, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: Non-notable person; unlikely to be useful; COM:OOS. -- CptViraj (talk) 09:42, 4 August 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:DC Flash.jpg

unused personal image Estopedist1 (talk) 07:49, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unused personal image plus uncertain whether subject has consented. Taylor 49 (talk) 09:57, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Alaa :)..! 16:39, 18 July 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:3.10.16 Manchester 14 (30017075611).jpg

photo of copyrighted works (film poster, other images) valepert (talk) 08:00, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 04:41, 17 July 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:J.O.Roch - Judge.jpg

Low quality, tight crop, no exif, unlikely to be own work Gbawden (talk) 08:09, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 04:41, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Eve Best House of the Dragon Premiere in London.gif

possible copyvio: Credit: Mike Marsland / Contributor. See Getty Images: https://www.gettyimages.co.nz/detail/news-photo/eve-best-attends-the-house-of-the-dragon-sky-group-premiere-news-photo/1415159590?adppopup=true איז「Ysa」 08:11, 10 July 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 RandomMelonHere

out of scope. --valepert (talk) 08:12, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination, looks like screenshots from a Pokemon browser/discord game. --CptViraj (talk) 11:05, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Tom Erdimi UNESCO.jpg

Not a 2021 own work Gbawden (talk) 08:20, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files uploaded by Wikibamko (talk · contribs)

Credited to akapic.com, needs VRT

Gbawden (talk) 08:21, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files uploaded by Offcom2rei (talk · contribs)

Dubious licensing. professional photographs claimed to be posted Accord du photographem, one has Copyright holder Watson_L_RAJOELITSIORY/2REI/Défense in exif. All need VRT

Gbawden (talk) 08:25, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files uploaded by Gaius Publius Scipio (talk · contribs)

Credited to Sipa USA via AP file - may be free as its from a hearing but we need a proper source

Gbawden (talk) 08:29, 10 July 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:Indian National Flag 2.jpg

Sorry, I was just test uploading. I did not knew removing would be so hard.DivinePtr (talk) 08:35, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: courtesy deletion, G7. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 00:58, 23 August 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:LandComruss.jpg

Out of scope: Personal fantasy (photoshopped, likely also CopyVio) Enyavar (talk) 08:55, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

by same user, same issues. --Enyavar (talk) 08:57, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Alaa :)..! 16:39, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Morto in piedi.jpg

Mi vergogno di essere associata a questo "uomo" Daniellina97 (talk) 09:10, 10 July 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:Vasari, Giorgio-Autoritratto.jpg

very bad quality, very low resolution from unreliable source, many better files Self-portrait paintings by Giorgio Vasari, request by uploader Oursana (talk) 09:16, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 00:59, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Dana Vowinckel 2024.jpg

the person depicted has objected to the publication on Wikipedia(Wikimedia Commons). Amrei-Marie (talk) 09:29, 10 July 2024 (UTC) This person is a barely known author - what applies to famous public figures cannot yet apply to her.[reply]

Comment The file is COM:INUSE, though. If we delete the file, there will be red-linked photos on 2 Wikipedia pages. So unless there's some legal requirement to delete it, it should be speedily kept unless all information about the author is removed from those two pages. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:03, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:US-Lecce-2023.svg

Above COM:TOO. Although Italy has a high TOO, the silhouette is not considered a simple geometric shape Arrow303 (talk) 10:09, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's true, but how old is this logo? Might it be in the public domain, if it's from 1908? Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:00, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Ikan Kekek the 1908 refers to the original founding date of the team, and is still not >120 years old to apply PD-old-assumed. Anyway this logo was created in 2001 so no PD-old should apply. Arrow303 (talk) 08:38, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the reply. Obvious Delete, then. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:24, 29 August 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:OnCreativity interview- Al Jaffee, Part 2.webm

aren't the included artworks not CCBY? if so they must be removed and if not this probably needs clarification if the artworks themselves weren't already published under CCBY Prototyperspective (talk) 10:10, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Did you read the file information before you nominated it for deletion? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 10:22, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes but not the Permission field. In that regard: videos uploaded here under CCBY should/need to be entirely CCBY so I would have nominated it nevertheless. In the field it says Note that this video includes some copyrighted material which cannot be extracted as a freely-licensed image or video but videos here need to be fully CCBY to be CCBY. Lots of videos here have been deleted because they contain nonCCBY parts and this shouldn't be an exception, I think sometimes there is some temporary tolerance for keeping a file because it's not so simple to quickly remove the nonCCBY parts which could be done at a later point. Here the nonCCBY parts are frequent and major elements and should be removed before upload which you or anybody can do with a tool like Kdenlive or not upload it. Prototyperspective (talk) 10:28, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I'll tag it for speedy deletion. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 14:32, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 11:37, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files uploaded by Angelomautone1 (talk · contribs)

2 credited to Luca Colombo, other is not own work, all require VRT

Gbawden (talk) 10:17, 10 July 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 Saher AlSous (talk · contribs)

Dubious claims of own work. Multiple cameras, many with author info in exif. All need VRT

Gbawden (talk) 10:20, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 01:00, 23 August 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 Hubcik (talk · contribs)

Multiple cameras, many credited to Hubert Gostomski. Professional photos, I think we need VRT to confirm uploader owns these photos

Gbawden (talk) 10:24, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --✗plicit 03:36, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:UA T-84U in action 01.jpg

Free license isn't mentioned explicitly for this source, picture was uploaded because of misleading info RajatonRakkaus (talk) 10:30, 10 July 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:UA 3rd Bde T-84U.jpg

No explicit license was mentioned. It is only applicable to the site. RajatonRakkaus (talk) 16:45, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 23:51, 3 August 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:UA 3rd Bde T-84U.jpg

Free license isn't mentioned explicitly for this source, picture was uploaded because of misleading info RajatonRakkaus (talk) 10:31, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 23:51, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Игорь .webp

Low quality, tight crop, no exif, unlikely to be own work Gbawden (talk) 10:31, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The depicted person is Igor Barygin. The uploader's user name is IbaryginBIN, for which one could guess: I[gor] Barygin BIN. So, the uploader and the depicted person might be one and the same. Nakonana (talk) 00:38, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. But there's still a question of authorship. Do you think it's likely to be a selfie? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:05, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Add {{subst:delete-subst|REASON (mandatory)}} on the page
Notify the uploader with {{subst:idw|2024/07/10}}~~~~
On the log, add :
{{Commons:Deletion requests/2024/07/10}}

File:CARUSO LOGO STORICO pdf.tif

mio di prorprietà Caru85 (talk) 10:38, 10 July 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:Damage from the 1968 Charles City tornado just south of the Cedar River looking north.jpg

This image is the work of Jeff Sisson, who contributed it to the US National Weather Service website sometime prior to 19 September 2015. Its presence here on the Commons relies on the fact that for some years now, the NWS makes release into the public domain a condition of such submissions.

However, we have no evidence for whether or not the same terms applied at the time Sisson made his submission, due to uncertainty around the date he did that, and also the date when those terms first came into effect.

You can find the current terms of submission here, and the earliest date I've been able to verify that they existed is in the history of the template right here on the Commons. Dated 13 May 2009, it predates the earliest Internet Archive capture by over six years, and confirms the crucial part of the wording precisely.

Although we don't know when Sisson contributed his photo, he also submitted a written recollection of the tornado whose aftermath is depicted in it. The NWS site hosts it here, unfortunately without a date. It's published amid other written accounts of the event that were submitted in 2008, but the submissions are not in chronological order and the earliest one is from 2006. (We also don't know that Sisson's photo and his written account were submitted at the same time).

This discussion started over on English Wikipedia, where User:WeatherWriter was kindly able to cite numerous previous deletion discussions here on the Commons about files using the {{PD-NWS}} tag. I've reviewed those, but none of them seem to have addressed the specific question I'm raising here about what evidence we have for the terms under which an image was contributed.

Some of the images under discussion in those might also have been made prior to 13 May 2009, but there seems to have been an assumption that the terms then were the same as the terms now, without anyone actually checking if this was the case.

Finally, note that there are a few hundred other images that potentially fall into this same gap where they were submitted to the NWS under terms that we do not now know. Rlandmann (talk) 10:43, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is splitting hairs. The image is in a 2024 NWS webpage, therefore it follows the copyright free disclaimer actually in force. Pierre cb (talk) 11:29, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have some evidence that the disclaimer applies retrospectively? --Rlandmann (talk) 12:31, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Precedent and past discussions with this template have agreed it does. Commons:Deletion requests/File:Dead Man Walking Jarrell 1997.jpg is an example of a pre-2009 image being discussed. WeatherWriter (talk) 12:33, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Precedent and past discussions" are not evidence. And I'm not seeing any evidence in the "Dead Man Walking" discussion either, although it's convoluted enough that I might be missing it. If there's actual evidence in there of the terms under which the image was submitted, or alternatively, that the current NWS disclaimer applies retrospectively to all past submissions, then please point it out. --Rlandmann (talk) 12:46, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your entire argument is that because it is a pre-2009 image, we don’t know the rules on how it was given to NWS. So absolutely, the Dead Man Walking photograph of a pre-2009 image does help provide evidence to support the precedent that it does apply to pre-2009 images given to the NWS. As stated by Pierre cb, it exists on an NWS webpage in 2024, with is after 2009. Your argument would only apply to NWS webpages pre-2009. Unless you have evidence to say the image existed on the NWS web servers pre-2009, then your argument does not work. Copyrights cannot change, so if it is post-2009, then it is PD. WeatherWriter (talk) 14:07, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

When I say there is no evidence, I mean that we do not have any proof -- any written record -- that tells us either that the terms since 2009 have "always" applied (for some value of "always") or that they apply retrospectively to anything that was submitted in the past. The "Dead Man Walking" discussion does not furnish evidence of either of these.

The only thing that it does provide evidence for is that nobody in that discussion thought to question whether the licencing terms of the NWS today are the same as the licencing terms when the image was submitted. That issue was never raised and never discussed.

It's also noteworthy that the discussion was never concluded; the nom was withdrawn when the "keep" side convinced the nominator that the rule today must always have existed.

Websites and print publications can, and routinely do, contain images under a mixture of different copyright statuses and licences.

And licence agreements can change. For all we can prove, the T&Cs on 12 May 2009 might have been completely different and said "By submitting a photo, you grant the NWS a perpetual, non-exclusive licence to use the photo on its websites and other publications without compensation to you."

We simply don't know when "release to the public domain" became part of the deal, and by extension, the copyright or licence status of public-contributed images that were submitted prior to 2009 (regardless of when they were actually taken).

You claim that "Copyrights cannot change", and yet that's precisely what the "keep" argument relies on (stated by Pierre cb and endorsed by you): that we don't need to know the copyright status of the image, because if it wasn't in the Public Domain when it was actually submitted, the current disclaimer somehow makes it part of the Public Domain now. --Rlandmann (talk) 22:14, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per PD-NWS. Clearly follows the copyright template. WeatherWriter (talk) 11:39, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What copyright template was in force when the photographer submitted his image to the NWS? --Rlandmann (talk) 12:32, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As the earliest record we have of the NWS webpage is 2015 (archived 2015 version), it is the NWS webpage disclaimer. That disclaimer has existed ever since NWS started making webpages on weather.gov and as such, that disclaimer is used. It doesn’t matter that it may or may not have been given to NWS pre-2009. If it is the disclaimer and it exists on an NWS webpage in modern times, it would still hold up. Copyrights don’t change. If NWS’ disclaimer says it is PD, then it is PD. That simple. WeatherWriter (talk) 13:56, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If there is some evidence that the "disclaimer has existed ever since NWS started making webpages on weather.gov and as such, that disclaimer is used" then please present your evidence for this. Simply asserting it doesn't make it true.

"Copyrights don't change" -- so logically, if a pre-2009 submission was made under a non-free licence, whatever submission terms are put in place later doesn't change its copyright status and suddenly make it free, right? --Rlandmann (talk) 22:25, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Templates don't make copyright law, nor do they make Wikimedia Commons policy. They are a shorthand for what are often much more nuanced laws and Commons consensus. Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 01:05, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Just a quick comment for the closer — The PD-NWS template has been discussed in several dozen discussions (and subsequent DRs). Search for “PD-NWS” or “National Weather Service” to locate those discussions in the DR search feature. WeatherWriter (talk) 13:59, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Just a quick comment for the closer — The specific issue raised in this discussion (whether the current NWS disclaimer covers all past submissions to the NWS, even beyond the point where we have evidence of such a disclaimer) has never been discussed before. --Rlandmann (talk) 22:17, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per PD-NWS. File:Dead Man Walking Jarrell 1997.jpg is a perfect example of a pre-2000s image that falls under this template, and I don't see why this one is different. Sir MemeGod ._. (talk - contribs) 20:15, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also, why single this image out? The entire community has agreed that images on the NWS website are PD, no matter the timing. Sir MemeGod ._. (talk - contribs) 23:36, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The "entire community" has never discussed whether we can rely on the NWS disclaimer having effect even before we can document that such a disclaimer even existed. This point was not raised during the "Dead Man Walking" discussion, nor any other discussion that anybody here has been able to point to. And the "Dead Man Walking" discussion was never completed; the nominator withdrew the nomination when folks convinced them (without a shred of evidence) that the current terms of submission had always existed.

And I agree with you -- if we cannot be certain that this is a free image, there are many others that we need to re-examine in this new light as well, including "Dead Man Walking". I've been doing some checking, and it looks like there might be roughly 150 images that are potentially affected. --Rlandmann (talk) 00:40, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Whats funny is you are saying every discussion before is irrelevant. That is literally not how Wikipedia/Wikimedia works. What's funny is Commons administrators have ruled in favor of it being in the public domain & even Commons administrators have uploaded pre-2009 images under that template, following a pre-1974 image being nominated on English Wikipedia for a Featured Picture Candidate. Now you (and mind you, so far, only you) are saying it is wrong. Consensus and copyright rules seem to be against your arguments entirely. The fact all of that has happened and discussions for years have ruled in favor of keeping pre-2009 images under that template, this is a moot point. To be fair, you are saying almost 150 images violate copyright rules, that a Commons administrator violated copyright rules, that long-time editors have violated copyright rules, and most importantly, that images that have been specifically reviewed for copyright rules are violating copyright rules even (including the File:Bridge Creek, OK tornado 1999-05-03.png, on a EN-Wiki Good Article, which has a direct review of images for copyright violations & not to mention the 1999 Bridge Creek–Moore tornado article has been feeatured on EN-Wiki homepage four times!) Like, this point is literally moot. With this comment, I rest my case. This is turning more away from this image and more on the copyright template overall. My original Keep !vote will remain and I am dropping the stick to not let this become a small debate, rather than a discussion. WeatherWriter (talk) 04:28, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm not. I'm saying that every discussion that did not discuss this particular point is not relevant... to this particular point.

You are also putting a lot of other words into my mouth that I simply have not said. In particular, I am not saying that this image (or the ~150 others potentially affected) "violate copyright rules" or anything of the sort. I'm just saying that for images like this, we simply don't know what their copyright status is. Maybe they're fine, maybe they're not. But if you're going to assert that an image is copyright-free or available under a free licence, then you really need to have some evidence to support that claim.--Rlandmann (talk) 13:01, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dead Man Walking is confirmed PD. Sir MemeGod ._. (talk - contribs) 12:57, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And like WeatherWriter, I'm stepping back, as this is turning into a WP:FORUM. Sir MemeGod ._. (talk - contribs) 12:58, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

KEY: KMTV-TV published an article in May 2023 with this image and the caption stated “NWS La Crosse, WI for the attribution. Even the media acknowledges the claim to the public domain-ness of images on the NWS website. Either way, that is actual confirmation from a secondary RS source who attributed the U.S. government. This image is clearly PD, undeniable now. WeatherWriter (talk) 05:03, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Simply, no. When 3NewsNow believes an image to be in the public domain, they credit it "Public Domain", as they did here, here, or here. Prima facie, it appears KMTV made the same mistake that User:Sir MemeGod did when he uploaded the image to English Wikipedia -- like him, they assumed that because it was on a NWS website, it was the work of the NWS. We see similar errors from time-to-time with folks assuming that images they find on NASA websites necessarily belong to NASA (and are therefore in the public domain), hence the various cautionary notes in the {{PD-NASA}} template. Depending on the outcome of this discussion, the {{PD-NWS}} template might need some similar language included. --Rlandmann (talk) 13:01, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment — One final note: Here is a full link to the NWS Photo Use policy, which directly stated, “By submitting images, you understand that your image is being released into the public domain. This means that your photo or video may be downloaded, copied, and used by others.”

Comment — This part is not under dispute. Everyone here agrees that images contributed by the public fall under this policy as far back as we can prove this policy existed, which as of right now, is 13 May 2009. Nobody has any evidence for how long this policy existed before this date. Also, it seems everybody here agrees that whenever this policy was created, it would not change the copyright status of anything that had been submitted under any previous terms and conditions. That is, if some previous terms had existed, this policy would not retroactively change the copyright or licensing of any images that had already been submitted. --Rlandmann (talk) 21:40, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - as other editors point out. The webpage may have been created in 2022, but the government policy of stuff being in the public domain has likely been in effect long before then. WestVirginiaWX (talk) 15:47, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would think that as a federal government agency, the public domain policy would have likely been in effect for as long as that law was in effect. WestVirginiaWX (talk) 15:48, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And furthermore; the NWS also has a policy that if they get complaints about possible copyright infringement; they immediately remove and delete the image. It is extraordinarily rare to find a copyrighted image on there. The SPC also has a little entry on their tornado FAQ that says that anything from the NOAA photo library are free and in the public domain. As for stuff not in that library on NWS pages prior to 2009, I think they’re in the public domain, but I’m not 100% sure; only 97, 98% sure. WestVirginiaWX (talk) 16:01, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

But I’ll keep looking. WestVirginiaWX (talk) 16:04, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If someone can look and see how long the government has been effectively prohibited from claiming copyright on their works, that would be great. WestVirginiaWX (talk) 16:06, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Works of the US Federal Government have been ineligible for copyright protection since 1895, therefore automatically placing them in the Public Domain. (Like the images in the NOAA photo library, which also includes a really clear notice about the copyright status of the images)

That said, the image under discussion here was not created by a Federal Government employee, and US Federal Government websites can and do host material under a variety of copyright statuses and licences (ie, not all the material they host was created by federal agencies or employees). The mere presence of a photo or other resource on a .gov website doesn't mean it's in the Public Domain. (The {{PD-NASA}} template does a good job of explaining this). Also note the NOAA disclaimer on the site you linked that their videos sometimes include third-party copyright footage and can't be re-used. --Rlandmann (talk) 01:01, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

One thing to point out, even if the image was created before 2009, it’s very possible it could have been uploaded to the NWS website after that time. Especially true for tornadoes older than about 2000, because the weather.gov website didn’t even exist at all before about that time. You’re not going to have a copyright policy or a public domain policy on a website that doesn’t exist. And also, usually NOAA will declare when a copyrighted image is shown. If they specifically say copyrighted or not for reuse; then you know that it is copyrighted and can’t be hosted here. WestVirginiaWX (talk) 12:56, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And we all can acknowledge that there are rare cases where copyrighted content is found on the NWS website. But again, the National Weather Service isn’t going to host copyrighted content without clarifying of its copyrighted status in some way. I know governments and politicians can be dishonest sometimes, but I don’t think that the National Weather Service is going to purposely withhold copyright information just to cause people (or the Wikimedia Foundation) to be sued for copyright infringement. And I imagine they’re not going to be “gun ho cowboy” and recklessly host copyrighted content either. WestVirginiaWX (talk) 13:06, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And it’s no longer just one image that’s under discussion @Rlandmann, it’s the better part of over a hundred of them. Just for your information. WestVirginiaWX (talk) 13:11, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And another thing; has there ever actually been any copyright infringement suits filed over NWS images? Has there ever been any DMCA notices over NWS images? Probably not. Unless some rogue person didn’t know what he was doing when he uploaded it; or someone wanted to drum up drama because they are some kind of attention seeking drama queen (king) or something.

When a person submits a picture to the National Weather Service, they are generally (with few exceptions) doing it with the expectation that other people will use it; and when they submit it to the National Weather Service, they are probably wanting others to use it. WestVirginiaWX (talk) 14:25, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Let me address a few of these points.

You are absolutely correct that the image could have been uploaded to the website after 2009. It shows up in the first and oldest archive.org snapshot we have of the page that includes it (15 September 2015). So all we know is that it was before that date. (And like you say, that it was sometime after the NWS got a website!)
And yes, the NOAA does credit third-party image creators on their sites; it's just that a credit alone does not tell us anything about the copyright or licence status of the image. The general policy stated on weather.com is that any material not actually created by the NOAA is only used by them under licence, and to re-use it, you need to get in touch with the image owner.[2]. The photo submission process that folks in this discussion are pointing to is an exception to this general principle. (We just don't have any evidence that shows us to which images it specifically applies)
As a recent example of how this ambiguity plays out, take a look at this presentation that just includes a footnote to say "Some images are proprietary to Gulfstream, Inc". But not a single one of them is specifically identified. Which ones are we free to re-use from that presentation? We can only guess. In the same way, the image presently under discussion is explicitly credited to Jeff Sisson, and we can only guess about its copyright status; and if it is under copyright, we have no way of knowing its licence. Nobody this is saying this is deliberately withholding copyright information, or being careless. It's just not particularly clear or helpful, unfortunately.
And thanks for pointing out that this discussion could have implications beyond just the specific image we're talking about here. It was I who provided that ~150 estimate (although, after some deeper digging, I'd now estimate the potential figure to be about 2-3 times that).
As for your question about lawsuits, note that it's not the NWS's permission to host the image that's under question here. It's whether anybody else other than the NWS has permission to take the image and do whatever they like with it.
Similarly, to your question about people's intentions when they share a photo with the NWS. What they "probably want" doesn't actually provide us with any evidence of the copyright or licence status of the image. (And is unknowable, anyway) --Rlandmann (talk) 14:59, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You make a good point. But I would think that considering there are other NOAA pages and prior precedent here that implies that any image on a NOAA server is public domain unless otherwise stated; I would think that the weather service would indicate whether a photo or a group of photos were copyrighted. And it goes back to what @WeatherWriter mentioned: if you @Rlandmann are correct, that means that we have to go through all the trouble of changing the PD-NWS template, delete hundreds of files, and warn just about every weather editor on this wiki that they committed a copyright violation. And that would mean also that at least one commons admin would have committed a copyvio too. You say that there’s no evidence that it’s public domain; but there’s also no evidence and no proof that it is copyrighted. And let me ask you one more question @Rlandmann, has the Wikimedia Foundation been involved in any lawsuits over NWS images? I’m sorry, but no matter how many arguments you throw at me, you’re not going to get me to change my mind. I’m in favor of keeping and I’m going to be a stubborn mule about it. I reiterate my keep vote and I’m not moving one measly inch away from it. You might as well just let it go. WestVirginiaWX (talk) 18:57, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I completely agree with you that if folks here can't find actual evidence to say that this image and others like it are free, then yes, we'll need to go though hundreds of images to make determinations about whether they're also free or not. And I'm absolutely willing to help out with that effort. Some preliminary investigation I did suggests that this wouldn't take as long as you're perhaps imagining.

I have no insight into whether the Foundation has been sued over a NWS image, but I'll assume not. The absence of a lawsuit does not, of course, make or imply that an image is free. --Rlandmann (talk) 21:46, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And to answer the question about Gulfstream. It’s likely that the proprietary images were company-produced images to showcase the new aircraft. But you noticed that they declared that the images were proprietary. It all reverts back to the fact that the National Weather Service isn’t going to blindly host something and say their stuff is in the public domain without declaring any copyrighted content. Because if that were the case, it’d be a lawsuit fest. They always declare whether an image is proprietary in some way; if it’s not mentioned as proprietary, it probably isn’t proprietary. That’s why you see on some of the story maps and other pages whenever a copyrighted thing is shown, it says “not for reuse” or it’ll have a copyright watermark on it. The only exception for that would probably be images from places like Getty and the like that have extremely strict copyright and have filed bunches of lawsuits. WestVirginiaWX (talk) 19:13, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Since 1 January 1978, images in the United States have not needed a copyright notice or the copyright symbol to be protected by copyright. They are automatically protected unless they meet a range of specific conditions to the contrary. weather.gov very specifically says that "Third-party information and imagery are used under license by the individual third-party provider."

As to Gulfstream's photos, sure we can guess which ones they mean, but we can't know for sure, because they didn't specifically say. And at least one of the images from that presentation shows up in other places, like here, credited to Gulfstream, but without a specific copyright notice. Maybe it's free to use, maybe it's not.

The point here is that the .gov websites host a variety of materials under a variety of copyright statuses and licences, and that when it comes to third-party content, those statuses not as clear any of us would like. Rlandmann (talk) 22:07, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Quick note to what WestVirginiaWX stated earlier since I was pinged here: As to I would think that the weather service would indicate whether a photo or a group of photos were copyrighted...They do. See this webpage (the "Tornado Photos" tab) which clearly shows the "©" symbol, indicating those are copyrighted. They actually bold and highlighted it saying "The following images and text © copyright Gene Moore unless otherwise indicated." The long-standing policy is the actual copyright symbol is needed. Commons:Deletion requests/File:Twin tornadoes.jpg was a deletion discussion regarding this photograph, which has the actual "©" symbol watermark. That is the key to look for. Commons:Deletion requests/File:The Andover, Kansas EF3 tornado.jpg is another discussion where an image was watermarked without the "©" symbol and it was deemed to be in the public domain. NWS does a good job of indicating when it is or is not public domain. Actual, that website on a tornado outbreak in 1979 is a key one to look at. Check out the "Damage" tab. There are non-NWS photos listed with "courtesy of ..." without the actual "©" symbol. That is what NWS does. If it is copyrighted, they add the symbol. If not, then it is public domain. That website right there basically shuts down your whole argument as it is clear NWS does indeed indicate pre-2009 photos IF they are or are not copyrighted. WeatherWriter (talk) 19:08, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I’ll also add that the National Weather Service has a policy of speedily deleting any pictures or videos that cause them to receive complaints of copyright infringement. You can find that in the terms of submission too. WestVirginiaWX (talk) 19:19, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The absence of a complaint does not tell us that an image is free to use.-- Rlandmann (talk) 21:48, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alright look @Rlandmann, I know you are passionate about your opinion here. You have very strong views towards deletion. I get that. But if you haven’t already noticed by now. And I’m going to be kinda blunt here. Just about everyone else including me is just as strongly against deletion as you are for. Using a phrase from a recent deletion discussion on Wikipedia, you’re kinda (hate to say it) in a one against many argument here. Not trying to be rude or insulting or anything; just being bluntly honest here and I’m trying to (nicely) explain to you why the stuff on the NWS website is public domain unless noted otherwise. And again, what you are requesting is unreasonable and would require an all hands on deck response because it would be a mass deletion and sweeping changes. That is unlikely to pass without some major consensus there. Not to mention all the dozens of warning templates you’d have to send to nearly every weather editor. You might even need to warn yourself. Do you see where im going? Past precedent as mentioned by others, particularly Weather Writer has shown NWS stuff to be PD; and NWS’ own practice supports this. Not every rule is written and not every NWS policy they is in a handbook is uploaded onto a website. It is essentially an unwritten rule that the NWS must declare whenever a file is copyrighted, otherwise it’s assumed PD. WestVirginiaWX (talk) 05:52, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And something else that I want to kinda politely remind you of. The United States is not the same as Australia. The Australian Bureau of Meteorology copyrights everything (although some stuff is Creative Commons licensed); whereas the National Weather Service releases much of its stuff into the public domain. If you look at the pattern, you’ll see that the National Weather Service will indicate whether something is copyrighted, if they don’t indicate it, it probably isn’t copyrighted. Any organization who doesn’t want to be sued will indicate whether something is copyrighted if the bulk of their stuff is public domain. If the Weather Service didn’t do that, it would constitute a form of copyright infringement (contributory infringement). WestVirginiaWX (talk) 06:03, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Since I also happen to know that you @Rlandmann are a Wikipedia administrator (I looked at your user page), I’d suggest reading on U.S. copyright law, particularly regarding contributory infringement. WestVirginiaWX (talk) 06:05, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Implicit in some of your comments here seems to be a belief that something is only protected by copyright in the United States if it is accompanied by a copyright notice that says so. That hasn't been the case since the Copyright Act of 1976 took effect on 1 January 1978.

Prior to that date, you're correctː if something was published without a copyright notice in the United States, it wasn't protected at all and was in the Public Domain. That is, works were not protected by copyright unless explicitly stated otherwise -- they defaulted to free.

Since that date, the situation is reversedː all works created in the United States are protected by copyright unless ineligible for some specific reason (eg. not a creative work, or being work of the federal government are two of the most important reasons it might be ineligible, but there are some other fun ones too) -- they default to protected.

In practically all cases, this protection lasts for 70 years from 1 January of the year following the author's death. This applies whether the work was ever published or not.

Therefore, up to the point of submitting it to weather.gov, copyright in this photo already existed and belonged to Jeff Sisson. What happened next depends entirely on what Sisson agreed to when he submitted the file.

If the terms and conditions of submission at the time stated that submitting the image released it into the Public Domain, then the image lost its copyright protection at that instant.

If they didn't, then Sisson's copyright is still intact, and will remain so for decades to come.

If he didn't transfer his copyright away, the absence of a copyright notice doesn't take it away, the absence of a lawsuit doesn't take it away, and discussions on Commons don't take it away.

And, we simply don't know whether he did or didn't. All that weather.gov tells us is that "Third-party information and imagery are used under license by the individual third-party provider." and "Please contact the third-party provider for information on your rights to further use these data/products." (Emphasis mine).[3] Rlandmann (talk) 09:38, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If it comes to it, I'm quite happy to send messages to all involved. I generally prefer a personal message rather than warning templates though, except in the case of repeat offenders.

The one thing that has been missing in your explanations of why the content on the NWS website has been actual evidence, rather than supposition or belief. And I guess this is the root of where our opinions diverge. I am relying on actual evidence; facts we can point to, such as the overall weather.gov site disclaimer. The explanations you have offered are based on belief, extrapolation, probabilities, and even (in some cases) the absence of evidence.

The outcome of this nomination will come down to which of those approaches is more consistent with Commons policy -- evidence or supposition. Rlandmann (talk) 07:57, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, let’s just go back to just this one file. Let’s forget about the other files that are according to you, “potentially copyright”, and focus on the file that was originally nominated for deletion. Can you @Rlandmann summarize again exactly why THIS file is nominated for deletion? And then we can focus on whether or not this affects every file on a weather.gov server. WestVirginiaWX (talk) 15:13, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And I’m not implying that a work is only protected by copyright if it’s given a notice. What I’m implying is that the National Weather Service seems to have an unwritten policy of voluntarily giving that notice and usually abstaining from posting copyrighted stuff unless they have to (kinda similar to Wikipedia policy on non free stuff). The point I am making that I don’t think you are understanding is that if they don’t give that notice, they are at risk of being sued for contributory infringement because they would have lead people to believe that the copyrighted file was in the public domain. Because there are generally policies scattered throughout NOAA that basically say that everything is in the public domain unless otherwise noted. I understand you are seeking hard “evidence” that it is public domain, but sometimes the lack of evidence that it is copyrighted can be just as valuable. All roads continue to point to it being public domain and there is absolutely zero reason to believe that anything that doesn’t have an explicit ©️ statement is copyrighted. WestVirginiaWX (talk) 15:20, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Now that said; I do agree that there is a possibility that some of these images may be copyrighted outside of the United States. Even works by the National Weather Service itself. Works of the federal government are only public domain in the United States, the government still asserts that it can hold the copyright to their works outside the country. (Eg. A U.S. government work may still be under copyright in Canada or Australia) WestVirginiaWX (talk) 15:23, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

But within the U.S., it is likely PD. WestVirginiaWX (talk) 15:24, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And to that about the messages @Rlandmann. You’d be mass-sending dozens if not hundreds of messages; which you aught to already be doing. Go to the WP:WEATHER page and start mass sending to everyone on WP:WEATHER, you’ve got WeatherWriter, Sir MemeGod, ChessEric, Hurricanehink (who is another Wikipedia admin), ChrisWx, and others who will likely end up rebuking you if you notify them. Also another admin, I don’t know if this one is active on WP:WEATHER but Ks0stm has also added stuff to Commons too, you’d have to notify that editor too. WestVirginiaWX (talk) 15:29, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not to mention me. WestVirginiaWX (talk) 15:30, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I’m done. I can’t convince you that it is public domain; can’t make a dead horse go galloping. So rather than waste time, energy, and slowly have my sanity wither away from me, I’m just going to do what WeatherWriter and others have done and that is to let it go. WestVirginiaWX (talk) 15:36, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm really puzzled about why you keep coming back to how much work it would be to clean up these images if their PD status cannot be confirmed. This would certainly not be the first time the Commons has faced such a challenge when a whole category of works presumed to be free has been found not to be. And the cleanup can sometimes take years. And none of this is relevant anyway, because the amount of work required to clean up any other affected images has no bearing at all on whether this image is in the Public Domain or not. Rlandmann (talk) 23:31, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You're correct that copyright can get complicated across international borders, but that's generally in connection with copyrights that might have expired in one country but not another, not where a creator has voluntarily relinquished their copyright (or was ineligible for copyright in the first place). And, from a Commons perspective, this is irrelevant anyway: this image was created and published in the United States; if somehow it were still protected by copyright in some other part of the world (which certainly wouldn't include Australia or Canada) it would not matter -- only US law is relevant in this instance. (And nobody is saying otherwise). Rlandmann (talk) 23:02, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Again, this is the root of where our opinions diverge. I invite you to take a look at some of your recent statements: that the NWS "seem to have an unwritten policy", that the NOAA "basically say that everything is in the public domain unless otherwise noted" and elswehere where you say that the image "is likely PD". (All emphasis mine)

But suppositions and beliefs do not establish the copyright status of work. And on the other hand, the NOAA quite explicitly says the opposite of what you're claiming: that NOAA images are in the public domain, but third-party images are not (even though we know that some of those are in the PD as well, even if we don't know exactly which ones).

The need to include "an explicit ©️ statement" has not been the case in the United States since 1 Janusry 1978, and even the expectation was removed on 1 March 1989, when the US ratification of the Berne Convention came into effect. Remember that although there's a footnote in that Gulfstream presentation that "some" of its images are proprietary, there's no "explicit ©️ statement" on any of them, nor where one of those images turns up on another NOAA webpage, also credited to Gulfstream, but without such a statement.

I agree with you that our assessment of the copyright status of an image might sometimes rest on the absence of evidence to the contrary. The most obvious examples of this would include images published on a US Federal Government website that are not credited to any third party and are therefore presumably works of the US Federal Government and ineligible for copyright. This image, however, is not in that category: it is quite explicitly credited to a third party, and we do not (and probably cannot) know the terms under which he gave or licenced the image to weather.gov. Rlandmann (talk) 23:26, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why this image in particular? Only because I happened to notice an anomaly with it. In fact, both I and another admin on English Wikipedia at first didn't know that NWS has a mechanism where some public submissions become public domain. That's unusual in my experience of US Government websites, so I got curious about it. And that's when I realised that there could be an issue here if we couldn't confidently establish when the image was contributed in relation to how long that policy had been there.

I raised the issue on English Wikipedia, where the image was first posted, but before the discussion could be completed, WeatherWriter moved the image to Commons, so I continued it here.

At that point, neither I nor anyone else had any idea of the scope of the issue, so it didn't make any sense to expand the discussion to any other images yet. And neither did it make sense to invest a lot of effort in that endeavour if the outcome of this discussion confirms that these images are fine to keep. Rlandmann (talk) 21:20, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alright I had said I’m done but I’ve got to reply to this one. If you look at @WeatherWriter’s comments, you’ll see that the weather service tells you what images are copyrighted, even if it doesn’t have an official policy of doing so, that basically shuts down your argument right there @Rlandmann. There is no significant doubt to think that it isn’t copyrighted (which is the Commons precautionary principle). It doesn’t require evidence of a policy, because again, it may not be a written policy that is posted on the internet. But you can still see evidence of the policy in action. WestVirginiaWX (talk) 16:50, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Now you can argue about it until the end of time, but if you don’t have any hard evidence that it is copyrighted; my opinion isn’t going to budge. Strongly in favor of keeping. My suggestion for both of our sanity is to just let it go. WestVirginiaWX (talk) 16:54, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

One more thing though, then I promise I’m done. That very same policy also states that if the National Weather Service gets any complaints of copyright infringement, that the file in question gets removed immediately. They take copyright very seriously. WestVirginiaWX (talk) 15:33, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And about that thing saying that we “do not (and probably cannot) know the terms under which he gave or licensed the image to weather.gov” (emphasis mine), Did you ever think about contacting the weather service and asking them to clarify the copyright terms like Hurricanehink is doing?

Whatever the National Weather Service tells him, if they tell him that they require a specific copyright statement (House rules), then that’s going to majorly shut down your argument right there. Because that would be the National Weather Service going on record saying that everything is public domain.
If they don’t say that, then we’ve got alot of work to do because it means there are numerous images that are potentially copyrighted and the Wikimedia Foundation would be in violation of federal law (again). If they say that these images are still protected by copyright, then there’s the evidence and I’ll change my vote accordingly. And it would be a lawsuit waiting to happen.

WestVirginiaWX (talk) 15:43, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Rlandmann, there is actually something posted on the NWS Norman FAQ website that specifically says that they indicate whenever something is copyrighted. WestVirginiaWX (talk) 19:43, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I know this because I found their FAQ website. WestVirginiaWX (talk) 04:57, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: ignore my entire argument. Vote changed to delete see details below. WestVirginiaWX (talk) 22:26, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nice find @WeatherWriter: ǃ This meshes with other digging I've been doing that suggests that various NWS offices have widely diverging copyright and licencing policies. For Norman, OK, though, this is an open-and-shut case. Now, if all the others could be as clear! I've left a summary of other stuff I've uncovered here. Whatever the outcome of this particular discussion, I think we're going to need to compile a list of what we can document about each office's policies and practices on a case-by-case basis. Rlandmann (talk) 02:12, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Attempt at a refactor

OK! So, there are a lot of words here now. To assist anyone coming in new, I hope that this is an accurate summary of the discussion so far, and I hope that User:Pierre cb, User:WeatherWriter, and User:Sir MemeGod might be able to confirm that this accurately summarises their positions. It would be even better if we could get a third party to intervene here to manage this refactor, but I offer this as a start.

What's not under dispute

Since at least 13 May 2009, the NWS has had a disclaimer in place to say that when members of the public submit their own photos to the NWS website, they are agreeing to release their images into the public domain. Any public-contributed images of weather events that occurred after this date were obviously submitted under this policy and are therefore in the public domain.
The image under discussion here is of an event that happened in 1968. Jeff Sisson, who took the photo, submitted it to the NWS website sometime before September 2015
The NWS cannot change the copyright status of images not owned by them.

Where opinions diverge on this image

The delete argument runs:
- We can't prove when "release to the public domain" became a condition for public submissions (the keep side says: we don't need to know this, because the keep argument is based on the disclaimer that has always existed and which covers all public-submitted content on NWS sites. Therefore, this date is irrelevant)
- We can't prove when the image was submitted to the NWS (the keep side says: we don't need to know this, because the keep argument is based on the disclaimer that has always existed and which covers all public-submitted content on NWS sites, because the keep argument is based on the disclaimer that has always existed and which covers all public-submitted content on NWS sites. Therefore, this date is irrelevant)
- Therefore, we simply don't know the copyright or licence status of this image and can't assume it to be a free image.

The keep argument runs:
- The current disclaimer has always existed, for as long as the NWS has been publishing weather.gov (the delete side says: maybe it did, but claims about copyright and licencing need to be based on proof, and we don't have any)
- The current disclaimer should be understood to cover not only new submissions, but all those made in the past as well (the delete side says: the disclaimer says no such thing)
- In many previous discussions on the Commons and on English Wikipedia, nobody has questioned whether the current NWS policy also covers images submitted at all times in the past. This demonstrates a consensus that it does (the delete side says: we cannot assume that silence on this point means consensus on this point)
- A TV news website once reproduced this image and credited it to the NWS, proving that media professionals understand this image to be in the public domain (the delete side says: that website does not claim that this image is in the public domain; it mistakenly credits the image to the NWS.)
- Therefore, for any and all these reasons, we know this to be a free image.

Did I miss anything? --Rlandmann (talk) 23:07, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but you are too involved to make such a resume : long rebuttal of arguments for Keep, while feeble ones on the Delete side. Pierre cb (talk) 12:26, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sure; please wade in and edit the refactor directly! This should be a collaborative effort. Please make any corrections you think necessary and I hope we can reach a point where all parties could endorse such a summary --Rlandmann (talk) 08:54, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I won't as I cannot be judge and jury. What we need is a neutral assessment. Pierre cb (talk) 03:31, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I’ll see if I can ping some editors to give a neutral opinion here @Ks0stm @Hurricanehink @ChrisWx @HikingHurricane. I promise I am not trying to canvass; but if someone wants to give a neutral opinion, then step right up. WestVirginiaWX (talk) 16:52, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~. I don't see significant doubt that the photos are free, which is the threshold set by COM:PRP. We have no evidence that the NWS used different copyright terms in the past, and we see lots of examples of the NWS correctly labeling copyrighted material. There's no evidence of them incorrectly labeling copyrighted material, which is alleged here. Sure, there is a possibility that the NWS had different terms in the past and/or made a mistake in labeling the photos in question, but without a hint of evidence, I don't think this generates the significant doubt needed to delete. Consigned (talk) 17:23, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Updated to neutral~~: The email exchange below with the NWS suggests that our interpretation of user-submitted photos entering the public domain might not be correct, which is building doubt that the photos are not free, veering closer to the threshold in COM:PRP. The NWS response said they will take the issue to higher-ups, I eagerly await that response. Consigned (talk) 11:31, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the email below from the NWS. In that email the NWS clarify that they do not have a process/policy whereby submitters of imagery give up their copyright. Thus, content on NWS website is only automatically PD if it's created by government employees. Consigned (talk) 22:10, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In other words; it’s crossed the COM:PRP line? Correct? WestVirginiaWX (talk) 22:28, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, with their response there's now significant (or more) doubt that the photos are free. Consigned (talk) 23:29, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~That is literally the point I have been trying to drive to Rlandmann for a while now. WestVirginiaWX (talk) 17:31, 22 July 2024 (UTC)~~[reply]

Keep because the photos were quite possibly submitted after 2009.

those "2008" "2006" dates refer to the date of submission of the blog posts, not the date when those blog posts were submitted to noaa.

http://web.archive.org/web/20150201000000*/www.weather.gov/arx/events shows the earliest archive was crawled "Sat, 04 Apr 2015 01:30:51 GMT (why: alexacrawls)". this suggests it's most likely that the webpage was only created around then, which was way beyond 2009. RZuo (talk) 19:44, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My position remains strongly in favor of keeping. WestVirginiaWX (talk) 16:58, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unless someone can find evidence that it actually is copyrighted. WestVirginiaWX (talk) 15:05, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The only NWS images other than ones that clearly say that they are copyrighted; and ones from Getty, that I wouldn’t be comfortable seeing on here; would be images that actually still have proprietary stuff on it, and I’m not just talking about perhaps something proprietary in the background (such as a billboard or a backpack that has for example Disney princesses in it), I’m referring to say news pictures that still have the banner and graphics on them. There is an example of this with a couple images hosted on the NWS Jackson, KY website. The images are from WYMT and still have the banner on them.

Now while the image itself may be in the public domain (and thus, using the entire image would not constitute copyright infringement), parts of the image (the banners) are still under copyright and possibly trademark protection. So if someone were to take that image and then extract the banner from it, then they would be infringing on Gray Media’s copyright.

To a lesser extent, it also applies if something copyrighted is in the background. A particular image might be free of copyright; but you have someone in the background wearing a Mickey Mouse backpack, you can’t extract Mickey Mouse from the image without getting sued by Disney. I hope all of this makes since. Although I would only be worried about that if it is clearly a major part of the background (in other words, no pictures of the backpack allowed, but pictures of tornado damage that happen to show a portion of the backpack or shows the backpack further away would be allowed by virtue of freedom of panorama.) WestVirginiaWX (talk) 15:17, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

But you can’t tell me that this particular tornado picture has Mickey Mouse in the background. So unless Mickey Mouse is hidden somewhere in that background; I’m going to continue to be a stubborn mule in my opinion here. WestVirginiaWX (talk) 15:22, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And in fact, I’ve looked. I can’t find anything that is obviously proprietary in this image. No obvious element that is copyrighted. WestVirginiaWX (talk) 15:25, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: my position is no longer in favor of keeping. My updated vote is below. WestVirginiaWX (talk) 22:18, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Further discussion

There's a fair chance the NWS could sort out the issues of fact here (though presumably not the issues of law). Has anyone made any effort to contact them? - Jmabel ! talk 17:19, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I haven’t. Will defer to someone else on that one. WestVirginiaWX (talk) 18:04, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to ask the VRT to contact them WestVirginiaWX (talk) 18:04, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral pending response from the NWS. I emailed this today: Hi there, I was wondering about the copyright status of some older images you have, for the purposes of using them on Wikipedia. [4] - here is the link in question. You said a "special thanks to Jeff Sisson". Does Sisson hold the copyright to these older images? Or, because they're hosted on the NWS servers, are the images now in the public domain? The copyright status has come up in an article, and I figured the best place to check would be to email your office. I understand that NWS has a policy since 2009 that members of the public submitting their own photos to NWS agree to release their images into the public domain. Does that apply retroactively? Or were these images published after that 2009 disclaimer? Thanks so much for the assistance. Apologies if this is a bit wonky and technical, but the most heated discussions on Wikipedia are typically wonky and technical. Hurricanehink (talk) 19:19, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify, we don't know if the policy is "since 2009", it could have been their policy since setting up the website. Consigned (talk) 20:09, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said earlier. Unwritten rules. Not every NWS office posts their criteria on all their alerts. Especially in the south. WestVirginiaWX (talk) 20:11, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Hurricanehink, has the weather service responded yet? WestVirginiaWX (talk) 16:38, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not yet. Hurricanehink (talk) 17:37, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Whenever the weather service replies to your email @Hurricanehink, please indicate it and preferably quote the email itself. Please. WestVirginiaWX (talk) 17:10, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The reply-

Sorry for the tardy reply...but not sure if what you state as NWS policy is the actual policy. Our belief is that someone can still allow us to use an image on our website, but can still hold their intellectual property rights. You may need to go directly to the individual(s) that contributed imagery for additional permissions.

HOWEVER - that said - we have moved this question several "rungs up the ladder" to get a more definite answer. I'll let you know as soon as I get a response.

FYI - the link you shared is awfully old and was replaced many years ago. This one is much better: https://www.weather.gov/arx/ccy

Todd Rieck

NWS La Crosse

So no answer yet. Will update when I hear back. Hurricanehink (talk) 18:40, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This seems like a potentially damaging blow here: climate.gov FAQ says ”If an image or other asset has a specific copyright or credit to an individual or group other than NOAA, you should obtain permission directly from the source”. WestVirginiaWX (talk) 19:31, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Hurricanehink. This suggests to me that they don't have a process for submitters of imagery to give up their IP rights (e.g. via licensing), therefore images credited to people who aren't US Government employees would not be PD. Consigned (talk) 13:53, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

But @Consigned, I think you failed to read my comment below. If you look at the NWS Norman FAQ (which I have linked), they do have it written that the copyright status IS clearly indicated. WestVirginiaWX (talk) 05:53, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In other words, the NWS does host copyrighted content and I’d be fine with adding such a warning to the NWS template. But the NWS does clearly label any non-free content. So it is also fine (in my opinion anyway) to pretty much assume the status quo in that it is assumed to be the public domain unless it is indicated otherwise. WestVirginiaWX (talk) 05:56, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The only terms listed is they request that whoever took the photo be attributed (which is usually the National Weather Service). So even if it’s assumed copyrighted, that statement alone would still qualify as free content since that would be essentially the equivalent of a CC-BY license. WestVirginiaWX (talk) 06:02, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to hear from the "rungs up the ladder" mentioned in the email. I was assuming based on the FAQ and links above that the terms of contributing photos included the option to give up copyright (if such a thing is possible), but the email suggests that this isn't in place. If the contributor is not explicitly giving up their copyright when contributing the photo, the FAQ/disclaimers would be not be valid. Consigned (talk) 09:23, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect @Consigned; I don’t think the United States government is going to lie about the copyright (or lack thereof) of a picture. Let’s remember, we are talking about the United States, not North Korea. Our government isn’t that dishonest. WestVirginiaWX (talk) 11:08, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All I’m implying is that we’ve already got a site indicating that the NWS does indeed disclose whenever a picture is copyrighted, and we have evidence of them doing so. WestVirginiaWX (talk) 11:10, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I initially agreed with you, but the email response from the NWS suggests that our interpretation is not correct. I think we need to wait for a response from "up the ladder" to make a firm decision. Consigned (talk) 11:26, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I get your point. But I am still in the belief that the weather service would indicate in some way the copyright status on the individual pictures as a liability (again contributory infringement). WestVirginiaWX (talk) 11:31, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Any update from the “rungs up the ladder” @Hurricanehink? WestVirginiaWX (talk) 11:34, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And @Hurricanehink while you’re at it, you might want to also ask them (don’t matter which office) whether or not they indicate whether a work is copyrighted. WestVirginiaWX (talk) 16:23, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing yet btw. Hurricanehink (talk) 19:01, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What I meant was whether or not the NWS Norman FAQ is still valid. WestVirginiaWX (talk) 19:54, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Game changer. Found this on NWS Norman FAQ. “If the photos are copyrighted (those photos are labeled as such), you will need to get written permission from the copyright holder. Otherwise, you can use the photo without express permission, provided that you give credit to the source of the picture, usually the National Weather Service“. Finally a written statement from the National Weather Service proving that they DO indicate whenever something is copyrighted. WestVirginiaWX (talk) 19:39, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There’s your evidence @Rlandmann. WestVirginiaWX (talk) 19:40, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well this completely changes the entire conversation. Sir MemeGod ._. (talk - contribs) 05:12, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I’m going to quote WeatherWriter here (his words are italicized). He said ”That website right there (referring to a event summary website that actively indicates pictures that are copyrighted but doesn’t actually show the policy of doing so) basically shuts down your whole argument as it is clear NWS does indeed indicate pre-2009 photos IF they are or are not copyrighted.” But I’m going to take his comments one step further. This not only shuts down @Rlandmann‘s argument. This throws Rlandmann’s argument completely out the window. This is actual proof that the weather service DOES have a policy of indicating copyright status whenever it is copyrighted. WestVirginiaWX (talk) 05:51, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Question, supposing we do end up having to go on a scorched earth campaign regarding public-submitted images to the National Weather Service (which I am still dead set against by the way). Would that also affect pictures that are from the storm survey teams? And the drone pictures (which are usually provided by a local fire department, although the actual taking of the photos is orchestrated by the weather service), would those pictures have to be removed too? WestVirginiaWX (talk) 23:45, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I just heard back from the NWS, which said:

The information that has been passed down to me is : An individual who posts a photo on a NOAA website is not placing their photo in the public domain. By posting the image, the copyright owner is giving NOAA permission to use the image on the website" So for your uses, unless the images are already in the public domain (you can find them on other websites or a license allows for it), you will need to check with the owner.

Pretty clear that the NWS will be explicit for images that are indeed in the public domain. Hurricanehink (talk) 19:14, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Before we all jump to conclusions. Is there any way that anyone can ask the Weather Service if they mark all non-free works as copyrighted. Because there is also still (supposedly) a policy that states that they will mark stuff that is copyrighted as such. WestVirginiaWX (talk) 19:55, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And I am going to update my vote to

Neutral pending any response from that question. As much as I have been a stubborn mule; now I am starting to become convinced. But I’m not going to definitively say delete just yet. Please ignore my keep vote because I’ve mentioned it so many times I may not be able to easily cross out all of the mentions. WestVirginiaWX (talk) 19:58, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

But I would like @Hurricanehink to ask as to whether or not they explicitly label copyrighted works. WestVirginiaWX (talk) 19:59, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

After any answer from that question is received; then I’ll update my vote accordingly. Because my opinion hinges not on whether or not the NWS hosts copyrighted material; but whether or not they label stuff that is copyrighted. WestVirginiaWX (talk) 20:00, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Because I am still under the impression that they will clarify copyrighted stuff (it doesn’t necessarily have to have the ©️ symbol.); the disclaimer itself says that the information on NWS webpages are in the public domain unless “specifically noted otherwise”; that would in my opinion imply anything on the webpages. And that’s from the general disclaimer. WestVirginiaWX (talk) 20:03, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think we're going to have to listen to the NWS at their word. If we know that the pictures were taken by a NWS employe (or FEMA, or someone else working for the federal government), we already know it's in the public domain. But NWS was pretty explicit. "So for your uses, unless the images are already in the public domain (you can find them on other websites or a license allows for it), you will need to check with the owner. " The rules would apply for old images before 1929 in the United States. Anything since then is going to depend on the individual image and author. Hurricanehink (talk) 21:02, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alright. Let’s do kind of a review on everyone’s opinion. To summarize what everyone’s vote is: you can post your comments below.

Neutral* as indicated above. WestVirginiaWX (talk) 21:10, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Info: I will add that this approaches the precautionary principle threshold. But I think each affected image needs to be handled individually. So

Neutral overall.

Delete for this image in particular. WestVirginiaWX (talk) 21:14, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just to summarize at the moment: there are now four people who support deletion (my vote however only applies for THIS image, my neutral vote is for NWS images in general; it should be handled individually or in small groups.); and I know of three keep votes. So unless the other three (whom I’m not going to ping because I don’t want a canvassing warning posted on my talk page) change their votes to neutral or delete; or more people put their two cents in and say delete; it would end up being a “no consensus” discussion. WestVirginiaWX (talk) 22:22, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

But I will admit, the NWS email deals a devastating blow to the keep argument; deals an embarrassment to myself who had argued back and forth with the nominator for several days; and quite possibly a huge victory to @Rlandmann and all the others. WestVirginiaWX (talk) 22:25, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is now crossing or at least right there at Cosigned’s “significant doubt” line. WestVirginiaWX (talk) 22:28, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

IMPORTANT – I am adding this here: I'll be starting a discussion following this over on a noticeboard to help us figure this out. My first thought is that NWS office have different rules. The PD-NWS template was based on the belief/standard of each NWS office, being "NWS", was speaking for "NWS" as a whole. Several offices have copyright-related statements (like NWS Norman and NWS Souix Falls), so my thought process is to rewrite the NWS template to hold which NWS offices submit images into the PD and we only use images from this NWS office webpages. That is just my theory on how to handle this process though. The noticeboard discussion following the closure of this discussion will help solve what to do here. Short summary, NWS offices are indeed disagreeing with each other, so PD-NWS does not apply to every NWS office and only a few of them. WeatherWriter (talk) 23:28, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please post a link to said noticeboard. WestVirginiaWX (talk) 23:43, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've not made the discussion yet. I will tomorrow or later tonight when I have more time. Then I will post it. WeatherWriter (talk) 00:01, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright Noticeboard Discussion is here: Commons:Village pump/Copyright#Template:PD-NWS -- Administrator Help ASAP. WeatherWriter (talk) 00:56, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That aught to (hopefully) settle things once and for all. WestVirginiaWX (talk) 01:21, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I honestly don't see where the permission argument comes in. Unless the person or the NWS agency explicitly says that an image cannot be used, I see it as a government provided image. It's like YouTube; they flag things that they deem as copyright infringements. I'm not saying that we can use any image, but unless someone says something about this not being public domain or someone tries to claim an image as their own without giving credit, what's the point of trying to nitpick every image? ChessEric (talk) 02:52, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There is no evidence that the photographer (Jeff Sisson) took these images in any official capacity of the government or a private organization that would result in them being public domain. As a result, we must presume they are all rights reserved unless we have explicit evidence otherwise. The mere fact they are used on a NWS website (with or without a disclaimer) does not confirm their copyright status whatsoever. Absent explicit evidence that Mr. Sisson agreed to release this image into the public domain, it must be deleted. Nobody other than Mr. Sisson himself, even a governmental agency, can release the image into the public domain. And to do so requires more than just allowing a government agency to use the image. Berchanhimez (talk) 03:42, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Couldn't that literally apply to every image that a government agency gets from the public? ChessEric (talk) 03:57, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and it does. That's why there aren't templates that cover images submitted to any government agency by someone who was not employed by them and that they did not purchase the image (and full rights) from. Absent WMF legal declaring that the disclaimers on the NWS websites are equivalent to the disclaimers that someone has when they upload an image here, we must presume that the photographer/rights holder has not released their image into the public domain just because they submitted it to the NWS for their use. Berchanhimez (talk) 04:00, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's their responsibility to read and know the disclaimer, not ours. ChessEric (talk) 04:23, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And if they weren't shown the disclaimer, because they emailed the office directly rather than going through the website? Berchanhimez (talk) 04:26, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Again, not our problem. They are responsible for reading the disclaimer. We're not obligated to keep tabs on whether they read it or not. ChessEric (talk) 05:17, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Important note to all who may concern: Just want to add this comment in advance. If ANYONE makes any accusations; please ignore them rather than make counter-accusations (as me and others learned the hard way). And if you do feel like you have to say something; please say it on the appropriate user talk. I am saying this preemptively because this very thing happened on the noticeboard that was meant to gather administrator attention to speedily rule and instead it turned the discussion into a heated mess. I am saying this to hopefully prevent the same thing from happening here. WestVirginiaWX (talk) 06:16, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I know I’m changing my vote a lot. I am changing to

Neutral and in all honesty leaning towards

Abstain . WestVirginiaWX (talk) 06:18, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That’s absurd. I can’t put a disclaimer here saying “anyone who uploads images to Commons agrees to release them into the public domain” and then act like it applies to anyone, even people who have never visited this page. Berchanhimez (talk) 16:02, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree there. That would be a lawsuit fest waiting to happen. WestVirginiaWX (talk) 16:16, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What are you talking about? ChessEric (talk) 17:49, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As I’ve told you multiple times, there is no evidence for how any given picture posted by the NWS on their website was submitted to them. People tweet images at their local NWS offices, people email the office directly, maybe they’re friends with an employee and text it to them. You cannot guarantee that any one image was submitted in such a way that the person submitting it saw, much less agreed to, that disclaimer. Berchanhimez (talk) 20:46, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

on the contrary, you should provide evidence for whatever those scenarios you describe. otherwise, there's no reason to doubt why the general "NWS Disclaimer for Photo Use" does not apply to any specific files. RZuo (talk) 20:51, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A disclaimer cannot have any effect on someone who was not presented it and had no chance to object to it. Otherwise I would be able to say “if you die because our parachutes fail while skydiving with us we aren’t liable” on the website, but then let people who come in person to sign up and never even knew we had a website would somehow be beholden to that disclaimer that I never informed them of? Get real.

Further, I did provide evidence for them - I described people submitting images to the NWS on Twitter and not being given a disclaimer, which you would be able to quickly verify if you cared to. This applies to other social media pages as well.

There is reason to doubt it applies because there is no evidence that people have agreed to it or even seen that it exists before submitting their photos. Berchanhimez (talk) 21:26, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Links to images posted elsewhere on the Internet (i.e., other photo galleries) will not be accepted. Only images and videos that are attached to your e-mail will be considered."

so a comparison to images submitted thru twitter is irrelevant.

here the files in question were not submitted thru twitter. evidence should be shown to back up the claim that the disclaimer was not shown to copyright holders. RZuo (talk) 19:16, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On the contrary, the onus is on those claiming the disclaimer was shown and agreed to to prove that it was, especially given the legitimate concerns that it may not have been. As a prime example, what if someone emails images to the office directly, rather than finding their email through the specific photo submission page? Berchanhimez (talk) 22:37, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"By submitting images, you understand that your image is being released into the public domain." RZuo (talk) 09:26, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

UPDATE -- a lot of the discussion so far has revolved around the terms set out in these terms and conditions which very clearly release a contribution into the public domain. However, this is only one of many public submission processes scattered around weather.gov. For exampleː

this process and this process only require that the owner give the NWS permission to share the photo
this process requires that the owner gives the NWS, NOAA, or "anyone else" permission to share the photo specifically "for lightning safety and related uses"

Neither of which puts the image in the PD, or licences it under anything compatible with CC.

Then we also haveː

this process that says that submissions become part of the PD, but also allows submitters to set a condition that credit is required with each use, so the resulting copyright and license status is unclear.

So, unless we know which of these (or potentially any others that currently exist or have ever existed) a contributor used, we can't know what they actually agreed to. --Rlandmann (talk) 23:59, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hirtle chart

I hate to open another can of worms, but I think there is another element that hasn't been considered yet. It seems like the discussion above is leaning towards photos by non-government employees submitted to the NWS not automatically being Public Domain. If this is the case, then the photographer retains their standard copyrights, following US copyright rules at the Hirtle chart.

Do we know the date that these photos were published? Were they published in 1968 or only later? Photos published before 1 March 1989 required copyright notice and/or registration, so the photo may still be PD. Consigned (talk) 09:13, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I’m going to

Abstain on this one; that way I don’t further fuel any arguments. WestVirginiaWX (talk) 16:18, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If it were my opinion; I think we need to contact WMF legal and have them issue an official opinion. WestVirginiaWX (talk) 16:42, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I should be able to get to that today, I'll let ya'll know if not. Sir MemeGod ._. (talk - contribs) 17:14, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Stepping away - This discussion (as per JMabel’s worries, has probably done more bad than good, and I will be stepping away and not contacting the WMF Legal Team. Sir MemeGod ._. (talk - contribs) 15:27, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Attempting to bring this toward resolution

This has been a long, confusing discussion, in which several people's positions on the matter have changed as more evidence came in. I don't think any admin is likely to read through the above and successfully absorb all of the arguments in any reasonable amount of time. I believe there is no COM:SCOPE issue here: it is all about copyright status.

Pinging @MemeGod27, Sir MemeGod (are these really two different accounts??), Pinging @Rlandmann, Pierre cb, WeatherWriter, WestVirginiaWX, Consigned, Hurricanehink, Berchanhimez, ChessEric, RZuo (but others are welcome): could you each state your current position in 250 words or less? Please no questioning each other's character or motives; please no cross-talk and commenting again on each other's comments: a simple statement on where you stand now as to whether Commons can host this file and why you think that is the case. - Jmabel ! talk 19:02, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Sir MemeGod and @MemeGod27 are the same accounts. They renamed the account around a month ago, maybe a little more than a month ago. WestVirginiaWX (talk) 20:15, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(If you feel that this is premature and there is still evidence to be gathered, and you intend to gather it, not just that you wish someone else would, feel free to say that.) - Jmabel ! talk 19:06, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Quick side note to @Jmabel, my account was originally MemeGod27, before I renamed it to Sir MemeGod. So it’s the same account but for some reason by former username got mixed up in here. Sir MemeGod ._. (talk - contribs) 19:09, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Sir MemeGod: Your signature here links both, you might want to fix that. - Jmabel ! talk 19:17, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Summary position - delete. based on the email I received from the NWS, they cannot confirm the public domain status of the image, so unless told otherwise, this image is copyrighted by the photographer. In the future, only NWS images confirmed to be created by a government employee is in the public domain. Hurricanehink (talk) 19:15, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Summary position - Weak keep (as original file uploader on en.wiki) Per HurricaneHink’s discussion with the National Weather Service, they were unable to confirm the status of the image (and potentially others). No confirmation, no proof that the person who took the photo was aware that it would be released into the public domain. On the contrary, this contradicts what the NWS directly states on their disclaimer page. Keep PD-NWS template, as the only images affected by this are images NOT made by employees of the NWS (which the template falls under). Also thank you JMabel for bringing this entire discussion into sb organized state. Sir MemeGod ._. (talk - contribs) 19:22, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Summary position - Weak keep, per written policies by the NWS (see NWS Norman FAQ and others). Although @Hurricanehink’s email is the reason why this is only weakly keep. WestVirginiaWX (talk) 20:17, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As for the PD-NWS tag itself. My vote is a modified keep, depending on the results of this discussion; it may need to be modified to only allow works explicitly made by the National Weather Service or another US government agency, or (possibly) submissions made after 2009 (which seems to be the earliest reliable date that the NWS had a disclaimer on public domain status) WestVirginiaWX (talk) 20:32, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Additional information: I will also add some additional evidence to my summary here. Some of the evidence that Rlandmann posted that supposedly implies that picture submissions are still under copyright actually say the opposite. The NWS lightning photos site specifically says what people are required to indicate whenever their submission is copyrighted or not. And the supposedly ambiguous Omaha link specifically says that public submissions are released into the public domain. If you doubt what I am saying; the lightning website when it lists what stuff must be included in a submission, specifically lists that including “whether the image is copyrighted” is one of the requirements. And the Omaha summary specifically mentions the words “public domain” in the context of submissions. Although Rlandmann’s assertions on the other two links not mentioning or only vaguely referencing copyright is correct. My “weak keep” vote remains weak for that reason and because of the email. WestVirginiaWX (talk) 01:37, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Summary - disallow use of pd-NWS tag going forward, begin individual review of images to confirm if another license/tag may apply, otherwise delete. There simply are too many questions over whether modern images were ever submitted with a disclaimer seen and agreed to, and there is no way for us to know whether any individual image was. Furthermore, the other disclaimers we allow (such as Flickr/Youtube) default to copyright and require the submitter to take positive action (explicitly changing that to a free license), unlike this situations. Thus per PRP, the tag should not be allowed as a free license. Many images may be so old as to not be eligible for copyright without having been published with a notice, or may have been released into the public domain by the photographer elsewhere. But barring any other free license being confirmed, delete. I have seen no evidence that this image has ever been clearly and voluntarily released into the public domain, so this image should be deleted. The discussion about the tag’s appropriateness should continue elsewhere. Berchanhimez (talk) 20:23, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Summary – Keep – I will admit that I had not read the disclaimers, nor had I looked at where the image came from. In fact, I thought the deletion discussion was for the image of the tornado, not the damage. However, after looking up different disclaimers on NOAA sites, my vote has not changed. The NOAA Digital Library website says, "Images in the NOAA Digital Library are in the “public domain” and cannot be copyrighted. Unless otherwise noted in the credit or caption of the item of interest, you may use it without express permission." The website links to the NWS disclaimer, which says "The information on government servers are in the public domain, unless specifically annotated otherwise, and may be used freely by the public so long as you do not 1) claim it is your own (e.g. by claiming copyright for NWS information -- see below), 2) use it in a manner that implies an endorsement or affiliation with NOAA/NWS, or 3) modify it in content and then present it as official government material." Also note that this deletion request defers from this deletion request, which was specifically made because the event page says the image was copyrighted. That wording is not used here. Furthermore, the NWS Disclaimer for Photo Use says, "If we receive complaints of copyright infringement, the image in question will be removed immediately." However, these photos have been up since at least 2016, which is when all the NWS offices changed all their links (one of the links on the page still leads to old URL used and leads to nothing), so it's been around for a while without any one complaining about it. As a result, my interpretation of this is that unless NOAA/NWS offices say that an image is copyrighted by the person who submitted it, the submitter has consented to the image being in public domain regardless of whether or not they read the disclaimer. ChessEric (talk) 21:50, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As for the PD-NWS tag, I'm going to go Conditional Keep as I think it is a valid tag, but there are clearly some discrepancies that need to be addressed so that problems like this don't arise in the future. I do believe, however, a straight-up removal of this tag is just going to complicate things. ChessEric (talk) 21:57, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Summary – Keep Pierre cb (talk) 22:04, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've asked at COM:AN for an uninvolved admin to come in about 24 hours from now and resolve this one way or the other. - Jmabel ! talk 23:05, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Summary – Keep: The PD-NWS template has been in use for a long time and has been upheld and tons of deletion request discussions. Regarding this specific image, it comes from this NWS webpage, which is by NWS La Crosse. That webpage has a "disclaimer" button at the very bottom, which links straight to the NWS Headquarters disclaimer, which clearly states all information on NWS webpages are public domain. NWS La Crosse also has their own disclaimer (different webpage albeit) which states, "Please note that this is a government site and in the public domain, so no copyright privileges will exist". My personal guess is the NWS La Crosse employee who replied to the email was told wrong, given the several instances of NWS stating the PD disclaimers. This specific image is also used by KMTV, which cites “NWS La Crosse, WI” in the image’s caption and it is used by TornadoTalk, which says it is “Images via NWS La Crosse”. In my opinion, it seems clear media follow the PD-NWS disclaimers and that the specific NWS employee was told wrong for that email reply. For all of those reasonings, I believe this image should be kept and that the PD-NWS template should be kept as is. WeatherWriter (talk) 03:19, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Summary - Delete: Berchanhimez above explains more clearly and accurately than I do, but I'll summarize my conclusion anyway. Releasing a photo into the public domain (or licensing it freely) is a significant step for a copyright holder to take. Though there is one disclaimer on the NWS website (seemingly in a local section?) stating that user-submitted imagery is released into the public domain, this is contradicted by the email response from the NWS. Not only is it disputed by the NWS, but I agree with Berchanhimez about its questionable validity in the first place. A "positive action" or "overt act" (legal writing on this topic can be found by searching the internet for "copyright abandonment overt", e.g. [5] para 22) is required to relinquish one's copyright, and I don't think the disclaimer meets this criteria. My sense, which I believe is confirmed by the NWS email, is that the NWS is like other government agencies - content produced by federal employees in their line of work is automatically PD ({{PD-USGov}}), whereas third parties retain their copyrights (COM:HIRTLE). Consigned (talk) 14:17, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Summary – Delete (and begin to review other third-party images under the PD-NWS tag) What we know:
1. The weather.gov general disclaimer specifically states that third-party images are used under license, and advises to contact the image owner for re-use[6]
2. The email obtained by HurricaneHink from the NWS confirms this.
3. Different NWS offices and programs currently have a wide range of mechanisms for public submission of images. Some of these definitely make the image free,[7] some definitely do not,[8][9][10] and at least one is ambiguous.[11] We generally do not know how long these have been in place.
4. At least one regional weather forecast office[12] has a disclaimer stating that all images on their site not explicitly labelled as protected by copyright can be reproduced without permission. This is at odds with the general disclaimer(1) and email,(2) so I understand it to apply only to images hosted by that particular office.
5. weather.gov has been accepting public submissions for a very long time.
6. As a result of all the above, we generally do not know under what terms a creator released any image to the NWS, and therefore whether is free or not. (Those hosted by Norman, OK are an exception: they are certainly free) This image is one example where we do not and cannot know its copyright or licence status. (edited) --Rlandmann (talk) 02:01, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: Per the precautionary principle, there is "significant doubt" about the public domain status of this file (4x keep + nominator, 5x delete), so I will delete it. Whether to disallow the use of the {{PD-NWS}} tag should probably be decided in a village pump discussion and not a deletion discussion. —Matrix(!) {user - talk? - _uselesscontributions} 04:39, 7 August 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 Fogão verde (talk · contribs)

unclear usefulness. com:out of scope.

File:Certidao-de-debitos (5).pdf

RZuo (talk) 10:56, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 01:00, 23 August 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 Md19434 (talk · contribs)

Complex logo, taken from FB per the image title

Gbawden (talk) 11:10, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --✗plicit 03:39, 24 July 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:Jonathan D. Licht, M.D.png

No exif, widely found on the university website https://cancer.ufl.edu/2023/09/page/2/ - i think we need VRT Gbawden (talk) 11:14, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 04:41, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files found with Special:Search/Charles J. Schwertner

Author Lavender Marsh, Copyright holder Texas Senate Media Services Not own work of the uploader, needs VRT to keep

Gbawden (talk) 11:16, 10 July 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:Melkon Hovhannisyan.jpg

no exif, unlikely to be own work, found here https://blog.melkon.tech/ and others. Needs VRT Gbawden (talk) 11:23, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 04:41, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Toughstufflogo.jpg

Copyvio: Logo appears to meet threshold of originality level. 2003:C0:8F0D:1500:CF7:7649:3517:956D 11:38, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, because of the background. If User:ToughStuffMusic were to show COM:VRT that they own the copyright to this image and affirm that they give it an appropriate Copyleft license, it would be OK. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:08, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Kend futbol komandasi.jpg

This file was initially tagged by Dr.Wiki54 as Speedy (SD) and the most recent rationale was: F10 — billinghurst sDrewth 12:00, 10 July 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:Caricatura Lula Prisão.jpg

no clear educational value, and a lack of clarity of the artist; if personal artwork, then out of scope — billinghurst sDrewth 12:11, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 04:41, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:NOAA-NWS-WFO.jpg

No source has been provided for this file. I tagged it {{Nsd}} but User:Pierre cb reverted it with the comment "This is from a NWS webpage in 2005 copyright free which is difficult to find in 2024".

COM:LI states "the following information must be given on the description page, regardless if the license requires it or not... The Source of the material."

Is "a NWS webpage... difficult to find in 2024" an adequate source to satisfy this requirement? Rlandmann (talk) 12:21, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As stated, a source page of 2005 is impossible to find. This is however obviously a webpage capture from an NWS WFO at that time. Pierre cb (talk) 13:03, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How is it "obviously" a webpage capture? --Rlandmann (talk) 22:34, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's tiny, even for 2005. Do you think it could be a regular photo? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:09, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever its source, it's probably been compressed for digital transmission (although not out of the question that it's been cropped from a larger image...); but that doesn't mean or even imply "webpage", let alone which webpage.

And, more to the point, if it is a webpage capture, we can't verify which webpage, and even if it's from weather.gov, they publish very many third-party images under a wide range of licenses, so without the original source and context we can't verify that this is a free image.

Therefore significant doubt exists that this image exists in the Public Domain or is available under a free license and COM:PRP says we should delete it.

COM:ONUS places the burden of evidence of its free status on the uploader or people wanting to keep it here. --Rlandmann (talk) 22:24, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't disagree with you on there being no proof of which webpage it was downloaded from. I wouldn't presume it's somehow public domain or something. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:54, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I probably didn't quote enough in my earlier reply. Should have been "How is it "obviously" a webpage capture from an NWS WFO at that time"?

That's what I get for taking shortcuts when typing! --Rlandmann (talk) 10:13, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:22-28-069-davis.jpg

The uploader claims copyright, although he is only the photographer. No statement of original author exists Creuzbourg (talk) 12:58, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The camera geolocation is for the Old Courthouse Museum in Vicksburg, which would make sense as the location of a picture of a young Jefferson Davis. (Confirmed.) I'm not finding online any list of portraits on display there or otherwise held by the museum. —Tcr25 (talk) 01:17, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've found a number of photos on the Old Courthouse Musuem's Facebook pages that show the picture in the background, but no closeups of the label. I've reached out to the museum for more info. —Tcr25 (talk) 12:04, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Via Facebook, the museum stated: "It is a portrait of Jefferson Davis. We believe the artist to be Nicola Marschall but there isn't a visible signature on the painting. It is thought to be painted in the 1870s while he was living in Memphis." The plaque below the portrait (https://ibb.co/4NbPLRz) does not include that information, however. —Tcr25 (talk) 14:27, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep clearly PD and the photographer is the author of the new derivative image. --RAN (talk) 04:59, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That is not how the author is defined for copyright purposes; the original author (painter) is required. Yet, if its painted in the 1870s it ought to be in the public domain. But then the above mentioned information should be included on the page. Creuzbourg (talk) 22:11, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The artist attribution, etc., has been added to the page. —Tcr25 (talk) 01:02, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Flag of Angola (1967 proposal).png

There's an SVG version of this flag, see File:Flag of Angola (1965 proposal).svg. Adinar0012 (talk) 13:07, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not a legal deletion reason. SVG-Files are not editable for everyone. It is useful to have a PNG, too. JPF (talk)---- JPF (talk) 17:32, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Flag of the Government of Telangana.svg

Unfree file: The flag appears the seal, But the seal is copyrighted TentingZones1 (talk) 13:13, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Pretty sure the seal is public domain under Indian law. WeaponizingArchitecture (talk) 22:32, 18 July 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 Louis ebora (talk · contribs)

Out of COM:SCOPE. Seems to be members of a school newspaper with no real notability AFAICT. All files are hence unused. Wikimedia Commons is not your personal free web host.

Jonteemil (talk) 13:24, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 01:01, 23 August 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:Abdukakhor Kosimov, Абдукаххор Косим 2023 111.jpg

Clearly a screenshot Gbawden (talk) 13:27, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 04:41, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Scott Presler.jpg

I don't see this in the linked source nor do I think this would have had an applicable license. Invalid license is what I'd go with here. SDudley (talk) 13:39, 10 July 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:فنان سوري.jpg

Personal photo for non-Wikipedian. Out of scope Mohammdaon (talk) 13:50, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Alaa :)..! 16:40, 18 July 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:حصل المختبر الوطني للطب الشرعي على اعتماد ANAB الأمريكي ليشمل كافة مجالات خبرته.jpg

Personal photo for non-Wikipedian. Out of scope Mohammdaon (talk) 13:50, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Alaa :)..! 16:40, 18 July 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:اياد فرح.jpg

Personal photo for non-Wikipedian. Out of scope Mohammdaon (talk) 13:50, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Alaa :)..! 16:40, 18 July 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:اسلاميي.jpg

Personal photo for non-Wikipedian. Out of scope Mohammdaon (talk) 13:50, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Alaa :)..! 16:39, 18 July 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:FB IMG 1720566398776نبنيعيهبهبهبهب.jpg

Personal photo for non-Wikipedian. Out of scope Mohammdaon (talk) 13:51, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unused, low-quality. COM:F10. WhoAteMyButter (talk) 02:53, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Alaa :)..! 16:40, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Statue of Galaxy Express 999 - panoramio.jpg

Per COM:FOP Japan. This photo was taken in Japan and these statues are copyrighted. IDCM (talk) 14:25, 10 July 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:An Urinating statue of the character Kitarō on Mizuki Shigeru Road 2008-05-26.jpg

Per COM:FOP Japan. This photo was taken in Japan and the statue is copyrighted. IDCM (talk) 14:25, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Yasu (talk) 15:20, 10 August 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:Feliks Dzierzbicki z Bolimowa.jpg

Ponieważ się pomyliłem DanielCebeniak (talk) 14:53, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Masur (talk) 15:50, 10 July 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:Daniel Arenas 2013.png

The source is a YouTube video of an ad. It is not clear that the channel can license this video under CC-BY. The copyright holder is usually the company that paid for the Ad. Also, the website of the channel (that had 9 subscribers) is currently down. Günther Frager (talk) 14:56, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 04:42, 17 July 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 Greenlert (talk · contribs)

Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused fictitious symbols and maps of questionable notability.

EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:03, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted per nomination. -- CptViraj (talk) 09:45, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Dimitry (Yeliseyev), April 2020.jpg

File:Dimitry (Yeliseyev), November 2020.jpg

The video and the channel are down. There is an archived version that shows the video has a CC-BY-SA, but it is not possible to evaluate the trustworthiness of the channel. Günther Frager (talk) 15:14, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The website of the TV channel still contains the link to that YouTube channel in the header.

Keep both. The reasoning is unsubstantial. INS Pirat (talk) 15:36, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Maharashtra Police Insignia (India).svg

No evidence of initial publication date that would support the claim for public domain in India. The public domain in the US claim is also invalid as this insignia is not an "edict of a government". Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 15:25, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

en:Maharashtra Police comes under en:Ministry of Home Affairs (Maharashtra) of en:Government of Maharashtra. So being an edict of government it is free of copyright. The source of the image is this. Also see [13]. Bairagi Ram (talk) 09:48, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Bairagi Ram An image is not an "edict". In the US, edicts are "legislative enactments, judicial decisions, administrative rulings, public ordinances, or similar types of official legal materials". Under Indian law, it would be "Text of laws, judicial opinions, and other government reports". Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 20:24, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Ahecht:

You can check many documents on the official website of police like this one - https://www.mahapolice.gov.in/uploads/mat-circular.pdf. These documents have the police logo, hence an edict.

Regards Bairagi Ram (talk) 15:55, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The text of the edict would be in the public domain. Copyrighted logos don't become public domain just because they are on the letterhead that a public domain edict was published on (and Indian law specified that only the text is public domain). Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 16:21, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If that is the case then the file should be moved to Wikipedia under fair use before deleting it from Commons. Bairagi Ram (talk) 11:30, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Deletion requests/2024/07/10

July 10

Files uploaded by LucaAsher (talk · contribs)

Files in Category:Metgessa

Files uploaded by Scaleboard99 (talk · contribs)

Files uploaded by Scaleboard99 (talk · contribs)

Files uploaded by Kari1953Le (talk · contribs)

Files found with Special:Search/Janet Mbugua

Files uploaded by RandomMelonHere

Files uploaded by Wikibamko (talk · contribs)

Files uploaded by Offcom2rei (talk · contribs)

Files uploaded by Gaius Publius Scipio (talk · contribs)

Files uploaded by Angelomautone1 (talk · contribs)

Files uploaded by Saher AlSous (talk · contribs)

Files uploaded by Hubcik (talk · contribs)

Attempt at a refactor

Further discussion

Hirtle chart

Attempting to bring this toward resolution

Files uploaded by Fogão verde (talk · contribs)

Files uploaded by Md19434 (talk · contribs)

Files found with Special:Search/Charles J. Schwertner

Files uploaded by Louis ebora (talk · contribs)

Files uploaded by Greenlert (talk · contribs)

Navigation menu

Search