Commons:Deletion requests/2024/08/11
August 11
The description indicates that this image is from the film Easy Virtue (1928). Because the film is directed by Alfred Hitchcock (1899–1980), it remains copyrighted in its country of origin until 2051. hinnk (talk) 00:37, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
Delete, UK film not yet PD in country of origin. Presumably also applies to other files in Category:Easy Virtue (1928 film): File:Isabel Jeans Easy Virtue Still.jpg and File:Easy Virtue (1928) still.jpg -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 18:13, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 10:28, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
Dubious own-work claims, these look like professional shots. Additionally, even if own work, these would be impermissible derivative works of trophies with complex designs.
- File:Vodacomcup.jpg
- File:History Superugby trophies.jpg
- File:Superugby trophy 2016.jpg
- File:Superugby trophies.jpg
- File:S10trophyrugby.jpg
- File:Lion cup.jpg
✗plicit 01:29, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --FitIndia Semi-retired 07:08, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
Commons:Nudity#New uploads of penis photo, not special enough to be educationally useful A1Cafel (talk) 03:24, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 10:29, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
Commons:Nudity#New uploads of penis photo, not special enough to be educationally useful A1Cafel (talk) 03:24, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
- Delete. CINAPA (Commons is not a penis album.) 186.172.193.153 21:58, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 10:29, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
Likely copyvio. Looks like a screenshot. No exif. C F A 💬 03:27, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 10:30, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
Random nude photo, act as exhibionism, not educationally useful A1Cafel (talk) 03:29, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
- added all uploads to a single super-nomination: Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by A7h3nas Dronebogus (talk) 08:45, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: already deleted by Julo. --Rosenzweig τ 09:35, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
Random nude photo, act as exhibionism, not educationally useful A1Cafel (talk) 03:29, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
- added all uploads to a single super-nomination: Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by A7h3nas Dronebogus (talk) 08:45, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: already deleted by Julo. --Rosenzweig τ 09:35, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
Random nude photo, act as exhibionism, not educationally useful A1Cafel (talk) 03:29, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
- @A1Cafel: added all uploads to a single super-nomination: Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by A7h3nas Dronebogus (talk) 08:45, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: already deleted by Julo. --Rosenzweig τ 09:35, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
Similar to UK, there is no FoP for "graphic works" in Hong Kong A1Cafel (talk) 03:40, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 12:41, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
Similar to UK, there is no FoP for "graphic works" in Hong Kong A1Cafel (talk) 03:41, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 12:41, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
Similar to UK, there is no FoP for "graphic works" in Hong Kong A1Cafel (talk) 03:41, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 12:41, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
Billboards are temporarily display, cannot benefit from FOP A1Cafel (talk) 03:44, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
- In Venezuela, government propaganda does not follow the typical rules of commercial advertising that we know. It is not a billboard that is installed temporarily and then taken down. Here, government messages become permanently embedded in the landscape, visible until they literally crumble with the passage of time. This type of propaganda, created by the government {{PD-VenezuelaGov}}, is designed to endure, not to be fleeting. Its continuous and public exposure throughout its useful life does not fit into the category of "temporary billboards". Wilfredor (talk) 03:52, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
Keep Per Wilfredor. Electoral billboards in Venezuela stay in place well after the elections, just like murals, and I can attest to billboards from the 2008 regional elections (or the 2008 Summer Olympics, to give another example) still in place. --NoonIcarus (talk) 04:06, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
Comment more examples --Wilfredor (talk) 17:59, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
Closed as Kept per discussion. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 02:48, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
No FoP for 2D works in Russia A1Cafel (talk) 03:45, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 12:41, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
No FoP for 2D works in Argentina A1Cafel (talk) 03:47, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 12:41, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
COM:POSTERs are temporarily display, cannot benefit from FOP A1Cafel (talk) 03:47, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
- The text below seems to say that there is no court decision yet but apparently it's fair to assume that it is legally possible to distribute photos of election posters:
- "Für das Abfotografieren von Wahlplakaten gibt es ferner mit § 59 UrhG eine Sondervorschrift im Urheberrechtsgesetz. Diese besagt, dass „Werke, die sich bleibend an öffentlichen Wegen, Straßen oder Plätzen befinden“ abgelichtet und weiterverbreitet werden dürfen. Es gibt dabei eine juristische Diskussion um die Frage, was als „bleibend“ gelten kann. Da Wahlplakate in der Regel für mehrere Wochen im öffentlichen Raum aufgehängt werden und der öffentlichen Information dienen, gibt es gute Gründe anzunehmen, dass sie als „bleibend“ zu werten sind."
- source: https://irights.info/artikel/urheberrecht-im-wahlkampf/32244
- --KaiKemmann (talk) 14:48, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
- Aren't they also destroyed right after the election? So one could say that they stay in a public place for all the time of their existence. Nakonana (talk) 22:11, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
- Also, there are plenty of DRs for election posters in Germany, all of them resulted in delete (there are only two ads related DRs in German FOP cases/kept). You can also check Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Election posters for the Bundestagswahl 2021 for a similar DR. If you don't agree with the apparent consensus, it would probably make sense create a discussion in the Village Pump to widen the audience. Günther Frager (talk) 20:56, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination & discussion. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 02:49, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
No FoP for 2D works in Russia A1Cafel (talk) 03:48, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 12:41, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
COM:POSTERs are temporarily display, cannot benefit from FOP A1Cafel (talk) 03:49, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 12:41, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
No freedom of panorama in Ukraine A1Cafel (talk) 03:49, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 12:41, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
Similar to UK, there is no FoP for "graphic works" in Australia A1Cafel (talk) 03:51, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 12:41, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
Likely not public domain. TJMSmith (talk) 03:52, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 10:31, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
copyrighted by PDT Paladinum2 (talk) 03:53, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 10:31, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
File:Street Scene with Che Guevara Poster - Near Durbar Square - Kathmandu - Nepal (13443431255).jpg
No freedom of panorama in Nepal A1Cafel (talk) 03:55, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 12:41, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
No freedom of panorama in Uzbekistan A1Cafel (talk) 03:56, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 12:42, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
Similar to UK, there is no FoP for "graphic works" in India A1Cafel (talk) 03:57, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 12:42, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
No freedom of panorama in Iran A1Cafel (talk) 03:58, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 12:42, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
No freedom of panorama in Rwanda A1Cafel (talk) 03:59, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 12:42, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
No freedom of panorama in Rwanda A1Cafel (talk) 04:00, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 12:42, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
No freedom of panorama in Sri Lanka A1Cafel (talk) 04:01, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 12:42, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
Similar to UK, there is no FoP for "graphic works" in India A1Cafel (talk) 04:02, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 12:42, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
Similar to UK, there is no FoP for "graphic works" in New Zealand A1Cafel (talk) 04:04, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 12:42, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
Similar to UK, there is no FoP for "graphic works" in Ireland A1Cafel (talk) 04:05, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 12:42, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
Similar to UK, there is no FoP for "graphic works" in Ireland A1Cafel (talk) 04:05, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 12:42, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
Similar to UK, there is no FoP for "graphic works" in Canada A1Cafel (talk) 04:07, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 12:42, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
Similar to UK, there is no FoP for "graphic works" in Canada A1Cafel (talk) 04:07, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 12:43, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
COM:POSTERs are temporarily display, cannot benefit from FOP A1Cafel (talk) 04:08, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 12:43, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
COM:POSTERs are temporarily display, cannot benefit from FOP A1Cafel (talk) 04:24, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 12:43, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
No FoP for 2D works in the United States A1Cafel (talk) 04:25, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 12:43, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
No FoP for "graphic works" in the United Kingdom A1Cafel (talk) 04:26, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 12:43, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
No FoP for "graphic works" in the United Kingdom A1Cafel (talk) 04:28, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 12:43, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
COM:POSTERs are temporarily display, cannot benefit from FOP A1Cafel (talk) 04:29, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 12:43, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
This is a non-free image which is not allowed on commons Filmforme (talk) 04:50, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
- This is the official promotional poster for the film that has been made available on IMDb and other websites promoting the film. Doctorcolin (talk) 07:43, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: Movie poster. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:30, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
This is a non-free image which is not allowed on commons Filmforme (talk) 04:50, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
- This is the official artwork for 'The Cost' that has been made publicly available and permission is granted by Two Tone Pictures to use it. Doctorcolin (talk) 07:44, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: Movie poster. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:32, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Diddykong1130 as no source (No source since) but was found Aurelio Sandoval (Mensajes aquí please) 05:19, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Yann (talk) 10:32, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Diddykong1130 as no source (No source since) but it was found. Aurelio Sandoval (Mensajes aquí please) 05:20, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Yann (talk) 10:33, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Diddykong1130 as no source (No source since)but it has already been found. Aurelio Sandoval (Mensajes aquí please) 05:33, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Yann (talk) 10:33, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Diddykong1130 as no source (No source since) but it has already been found. Aurelio Sandoval (Mensajes aquí please) 05:35, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Yann (talk) 10:33, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
Way too recent as a bulding/structure in order to fall out of copyrights, since there's no FOP in Greece. 🏺ⲈⲨⲐⲨⲘⲈⲚⲎⲊ🏛️ ⲱⲑⲏⲥⲁⲧⲉ 06:44, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 19:16, 12 October 2024 (UTC)
Reproduction of copyrighted paintings. The painter died in 2019, these won't be public domain for a long time. IagoQnsi (talk) 06:51, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
- The photo is taken from the side and shows three paintings in the same image. Even the light is not real, but artificial light alters the colors. I don't think this photo could be a problem from a copyright point of view--Sampinz (talk) 16:23, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 10:33, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Lee6597 as Speedy (SD) and the most recent rationale was: CSD F8 (Can be replaced with the high-quality vector version). This is not a reason for speedy deletion, so I create a regular request, which lasts a week. Taivo (talk) 09:28, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
Closed, file already Deleted and made into a redirect. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 17:22, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
Bad quality dupe of File:ROKA 5th Infantry Division Insignia.svg, unused. Taylor 49 (talk) 07:14, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 10:33, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
Ununsed and apparently botched, redirected to different File:Senátní volební obvody 1. třetina.svg. Taylor 49 (talk) 07:17, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 10:34, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
Exact dupe of File:1 Gold Candareen. Russo-Asiatic Bank. CINS0479o.jpg, identical pixelmap, just useless metadata (Adoobe + Macrosoft) stripped off. Taylor 49 (talk) 07:25, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 10:34, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
Not the submitter's own work. Copyright would be owned by Auckland Emergency Management, a subsidiary of Auckland Council. No obvious copyright license given for this or any AEM content but Auckland Council's website copyright forbids commercial use. Traumnovelle (talk) 07:30, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 10:34, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
Likely copyright violation. The source video is now private; the video page is archived, but the video itself was not. The description is visible, however, and it reads "mena massoud being himself compilation :)" This description suggests that the uploader compiled clips they found elsewhere, and was not the copyright holder. IagoQnsi (talk) 07:36, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 10:35, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
Non-free image, per here. BrazilianDude70 (talk) 14:21, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: Tagged as "no permission" since September 4. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:51, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
No evidence of free license -- YouTube video license does not necessarily extend to thumbnail. Uploader notes that other thumbnails on this channel are indeed copyright violations – we must assume this may also be a copyright violation per COM:PCP. IagoQnsi (talk) 07:47, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: Sorry to say but this is not a screenshot from aforementioned video: on the video the embedded red logo is located in the right bottom corner while on the photo the red logo (not the same) can be seen in the right top corner. Consequently, we don't know the copyright owner and the original license. Deleted with all derivative works. --Andrei Romanenko (talk) 21:53, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
Dupe of File:Orchidaceen von Deutsch Neu-Guinea - Tafel 180 (1928).jpg (exept cropping of empty area). Taylor 49 (talk) 07:50, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 10:36, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
Exact dupe of File:Kit socks rafaela2021a.png, unused (identical pixelmap, differs only in physical size chunk). Taylor 49 (talk) 07:55, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 10:36, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
“found in a book” is not good enough to show this is out of copyright Chidgk1 (talk) 08:16, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 02:50, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
Způsob dokazování povolení autora se mi zdá složitý jak pro mě tak i pro autora. Nebudu tedy nijak dál prokazovat, že mám svolení a budu raději, když bude smazán. Astronaut ambi12 (talk) 08:33, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 10:36, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own worked based on watermark and no exif
Gbawden (talk) 08:35, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 10:37, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work as claimed. Mix of cameras with exif indicating author name and some with no exif.
- File:10Mr. Pinochiio at NordArt Germany, 2022.png
- File:09The Dodo in Lorenzelli Arte, Milan, Italy, 2018.jpg
- File:08Original Sin(Bible) at DoDo Art Museum, Chaoyang District, Beijing, China, 2018.jpg
- File:07Original Sin (Ape) at NordArt Germany, 2016.jpg
- File:06Melody in Lorenzelli Arte, Milan, Italy, 2018.jpg
- File:05Wolves Coming at Newzeland . 2012, photo by Trey Ratcliff.jpg
- File:04Heaven Soldier in Gongti Bei Lu, Chaoyang District, Beijing, China,2010.jpg
- File:03Heaven Soldier at Guanyintang Art Gallery Street, Beijing, China, 2010.jpg
- File:02The People at Xing Yi Art Gallery, Singapore, 2007.jpg
- File:01The East is Red at NordArt Germany, 2018.jpg
- File:00Liu Ruowang portfolio pic.jpg
Gbawden (talk) 08:39, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Min☠︎rax«¦talk¦» 04:43, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
The image appears to be a direct copy from https://www.myneta.info/AndhraPradesh2024/candidate.php?candidate_id=370 which may be a violation of copyright. The image lacks a proper free license or permission from the original creator, which is required for media files on Wikipedia. As such, it does not comply with Wikipedia's content policies. Kdslk (talk) 08:54, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 10:37, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
Found online here https://www.facebook.com/photo/?fbid=422107954057220&set=pb.100087740562760.-2207520000&locale=ur_PK and soundcloud before upload. Needs VRT to keep Gbawden (talk) 08:55, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 10:37, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
Needs proper licensing to keep
Gbawden (talk) 08:59, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Min☠︎rax«¦talk¦» 04:43, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
Personal photograph of a non-contributor JBW (talk) 09:11, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 10:38, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
Mix of cameras, some have author info in exif, some watermarked, some from FB per MD. PCP
- File:Санхүү эдийн засгийн дээд сургууль A, B. C байр.png
- File:14. С.Бямбацогт.jpg
- File:16. Б. Найдалаа.jpg
- File:3. Ц.Алтансор.jpg
- File:4. Эрдэнэбилэг.jpg
- File:40 Энхтүвшин.jpg
- File:43 П.Ганбат.jpg
- File:36 Н.Нацагдорж (1).jpg
- File:35 Баярсайхан.jpg
- File:33-Д.Батжаргал.jpg
- File:32 Ц.Алтанцэцэг.jpg
- File:31 Г. Баянмөнх.jpg
- File:29 Далрай Даваасамбуу.jpg
- File:27 Б.Гүрсоронзон.jpg
- File:26. З.Мэндсайхан дэд сайд.jpg
- File:25 Б.Батцэцэг сайд.jpg
- File:24. Б. Мөнхзул.jpg
- File:23. Ю.Идэрцогт.jpg
- File:20. Д.Доржпүрэв.jpg
- File:22. Т.Батмагнай.jpg
- File:19. Д.Даваасүрэн.jpg
- File:17. Б.Батжаргал.jpg
- File:12. Г.Болд.jpg
- File:13. З.нарантуяа.jpg
- File:9. Мөнгөнсар.jpg
- File:10. З.Хайдар.jpg
- File:6. Д.Даянбилгүүн.jpg
- File:7. Э.Содонтогос.jpg
- File:5. Ч.Чимэддорж.jpg
- File:1. П.Солонго.jpg
Gbawden (talk) 09:33, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --FitIndia Semi-retired 07:09, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
Derivative work. No permission from the authour of the original photography. Vanjagenije (talk) 09:36, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 02:50, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
This file is different from other third-party images hosted on NWS servers that are the subjects of recent DRs. In this case, the source is explicitly given on the NWS page as "Unless otherwise noted, pictures courtesy ODOT District 4."
The Ohio Department of Transportation copyright policy states:
"Many, but not all, of the products and material the Ohio Department of Transportation produces are public records and are open for non-commercial reuse or duplication. Some items, such as the Official Transportation Map, are fully copyrighted, and reuse is expressly restricted.
Reuse of any and all material for commercial purposes is generally prohibited. Waivers to reuse material for educational purposes, and/or by non-profit or other governmental entities will be considered on a case-by-case basis depending on the source material and intended reuse. Accreditation to ODOT for appropriated material is requested." (emphasis mine)
Since we don't accept ,materials with non-commercial restrictions, we can't keep this. Rlandmann (talk) 09:39, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
- Delete per above - with the obvious caveat that ODOT may be willing to release this image into public domain and any editor is free (as always) to ask them to do so. But as of now, no evidence this is sufficiently licensed for Commons. Berchanhimez (talk) 23:42, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
- The fact others have violated its copyright does not mean we can do that. Commons does not rely on "implicit" evidence of copyright status as you want them to do. Berchanhimez (talk) 23:55, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
- I will give you a chance to strike and amend your statement, given you have put words in my mouth. Please strike/amend your statement to not attack me by putting words in my mouth. WeatherWriter (talk) 00:01, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
- I didn't say you said anything. You are using implicit evidence (such as other sources using the photo) - that is not acceptable on Commons as proof of copyright status. The mere fact other sources have also violated copyright does not mean we do on Commons. It is not an attack to point out that your statement was based solely on implicit evidence, which is not sufficient. Berchanhimez (talk) 00:09, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
- I will give you a chance to strike and amend your statement, given you have put words in my mouth. Please strike/amend your statement to not attack me by putting words in my mouth. WeatherWriter (talk) 00:01, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
- The fact that The Philadelphia Inquirer, Cleveland.com, US Tornadoes,(not a reliable source, but anyway...) and the Ohio State Government incorrectly attribute the image to the NWS should tell us something about the perils of relying on such third-party attributions. If, as you claim, the image was in the public domain, then the correct attribution should be "Public domain", and perhaps the ODOT as a courtesy. If, as I claim, the image is not in the public domain, then the attribution should be "ODOT" or "ODOT via NWS". But either way, "NWS" is demonstrably and obviously wrong and only exemplifies the unreliability of this approach to evaluating the copyright and licensing status of any of these images. --Rlandmann (talk) 00:55, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
- And plus; those newspapers could have gotten express permission from ODOT. Using that as a rationale would majorly go against the precautionary principle. That amounts to an “I can get away with it because it’s ‘common property’ and found all over the internet” argument. WestVirginiaWX (talk) 18:35, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
- And furthermore @WeatherWriter, ODOT is owned by the Ohio state government. You can’t infringe on your own copyright. WestVirginiaWX (talk) 18:37, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
- Clearly we’ve got contradictory statements. Either the federal government is wrong or the state of Ohio is wrong. I think the latter is because it is east to confuse stuff on NWS servers for NWS created stuff (and misrepresent the NWS as the owner rather than ODOT); it clearly underscores the danger of such assumptions. WestVirginiaWX (talk) 18:40, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
- And furthermore @WeatherWriter, ODOT is owned by the Ohio state government. You can’t infringe on your own copyright. WestVirginiaWX (talk) 18:37, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
- And plus; those newspapers could have gotten express permission from ODOT. Using that as a rationale would majorly go against the precautionary principle. That amounts to an “I can get away with it because it’s ‘common property’ and found all over the internet” argument. WestVirginiaWX (talk) 18:35, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
- The fact others have violated its copyright does not mean we can do that. Commons does not rely on "implicit" evidence of copyright status as you want them to do. Berchanhimez (talk) 23:55, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
Kept: per discussion. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 02:50, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
Renominating. I closed a previous listing for this thinking it was resolved, which seems to have been mistaken. [2]. Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 01:59, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
 | Closing admins should familiarise themselves with the evidence and discussions at this RfC when closing this request. |
- The image originates from this web site by the National Weather Service (NWS). The NWS noted the photo was, "courtesy ODOT District 4". Per the disclaimer linked at the bottom on the webpage, "The information on National Weather Service Web servers and Web sites is in the public domain, unless specifically annotated otherwise, and may be used freely by the public." We have confirmed evidence this image exists on a web site as well as the web servers of the National Weather Service (weather.gov).
- For the clause of “specifically annotated otherwise”, NWS either allows the user to add a copyright “©” watermark to the image {as seen in this image, hosted on this NWS webpage} or by directly adding a copyright statement using “©” {as seen on this NWS webpage: difference between the “Tornado Photos” and “Damage” tabs}. That disclaimer is linked at the bottom of all three of the NWS webpages linked above (this image’s webpage + 2 I used as examples). To me, “specifically annotated otherwise” indicates a direct copyright (©) statement or watermark.
- The NWS disclaimer also states, "Third-party information and imagery are used under license by the individual third-party provider. [...] Please contact the third-party provider for information on your rights to further use these data/products." See instances of usage below:
- The Philadelphia Inquirer used the photo in this article, where it is attributed "National Weather Service".
- The Plain Dealer (under Cleveland.com) used the photo in this article, where it is attributed "National Weather Service".
- USTornadoes used the photo in this article, where it is attributed "NWS Cleveland, Ohio".
- The Ohio State Government (note, the NWS-claimed photographer is a branch of this organization) used the photo in this official publication, where it is attributed "Source - NWS".
- To me, all the things above, along with the previous deletion request being closed as "Keep", point to this image being in the public domain. Arguments for possible deletion would have to argue RS media, with editorial reviews, along with the direct Ohio State Government, failed to actually follow the disclaimer and illegally "license laundered". If clear evidence of the aforementioned was presented, then my vote would switch to delete. However, I highly doubt RS media along with a state government would fail to follow the disclaimer in its entirety, which helps provide evidence that this photo is free-to-use. WeatherWriter (talk) 02:40, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
- Is not under dispute
- The idea that "specifically annotated otherwise" necessarily means a formal copyright notice is simply a fabrication, made up out of thin air by some commons contributors years ago. The NWS themselves have never made any such claim, and their actual practice is quite different from the "rules" that a few Commons constributors invented for them.
- The third-party provider in this case is the Ohio Department of Transportation. Per COM:ONUS, anyone wishing to keep this file should reach out to them and see if the image was ever released into the Public Domain or under a free license, or whether they would be willing to make such a release now. Without the explicit permission of the owner, it really doesn't matter what any fourth party has to say about the copyright or licensing.
- I don't think it's fair to use the closing admin's decision the way you are using it here; it was made on the basis of a different and far more limited set of information than we have available to us now.
- Works of the state Government of Ohio are generally eligible for copyright,[3] and we have no explicit evidence from either the ODOT who created the image, or the NWS who published it, that copyright was ever relinquished. Nor do we have evidence that this image was published prior to March 1, 1989 without a copyright notice or registration, which would make it ineligible for other reasons. --Rlandmann (talk) 04:20, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
- To throw the question out there since we should cover all basis, what is our evidence ODoT is the photographer? NWS? We have the Ohio State government and RS media saying NWS took the photo. If you are arguing we cannot trust the NWS disclaimer, then why can we trust the NWS’s authorship? Why not trust the Ohio State Government, who says the U.S. federal government is the photographer? In short: Besides NWS’s word (which the deletion request is basically whether or not “their word” can be trusted), what proof do we have that ODot took the photo? WeatherWriter (talk) 04:28, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
- Good question!
- The evidence is the NWS website, as the oldest and most independent source of this photo and its attribution, and which predates any of the other sources by at least five, maybe ten, years.
- Bob publishes a photo and says he got it from Anna. Five or ten years later, Carla, Dave, Edith, and Freddy come along, republish the same photo, and say they got it from Bob. The chain of evidence/provenance still points back to Anna as the original source of the image (as far as we can tell).
- We very definitely do not have anybody else (reliable or otherwise) saying that the "NWS took the photo". We have a bunch of sources saying that's where they got the photo. I don't see any of them making the claim that they got the image from the original photographer.
- I have never said that "we cannot trust the NWS disclaimer". I say we cannot trust one specific interpretation of it which is grossly at odds with observeable reality and which the NWS itself disavows. I have personally reviewed over 1,500 images spread over many hundreds of NWS webpages, and can point to only a handful of times I suspect they've made a mistake in an attribution. They are extraordinarily trustworthy.
- It remains possible that ODOT themselves got the image from someone else -- perhaps an EMA or private citizen. For the purposes of this DR, that's a distinction without difference, since it doesn't matter if we delete because we have no evidence that ODOT released the image into the public domain or whether we delete because we have no evidence that someone who gave it to ODOT released it into the public domain. The end result is the same.
- The evidence is the NWS website, as the oldest and most independent source of this photo and its attribution, and which predates any of the other sources by at least five, maybe ten, years.
- Rlandmann (talk) 08:57, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
- Good question!
- I'm sorry Infrogmation. No snark was intended, but on a re-read, my words were indeed harsh. I've struck that comment and re-focused it on the actual rebuttal. That's my bad and I hope you can forgive me. --Rlandmann (talk) 20:00, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
- To throw the question out there since we should cover all basis, what is our evidence ODoT is the photographer? NWS? We have the Ohio State government and RS media saying NWS took the photo. If you are arguing we cannot trust the NWS disclaimer, then why can we trust the NWS’s authorship? Why not trust the Ohio State Government, who says the U.S. federal government is the photographer? In short: Besides NWS’s word (which the deletion request is basically whether or not “their word” can be trusted), what proof do we have that ODot took the photo? WeatherWriter (talk) 04:28, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
- Because since it was first listed, we know a lot more about how the weather.gov disclaimer operates in practice.
- Examining third-party files on weather.gov that we know to be (or at least can be very confident to be) protected by copyright, we can observe that they are never attributed with formal copyright notices, but are generally credited "Courtesy of..." or "Photo by..." or something very similar.
- We now know that the long-standing belief that "specifically annotated otherwise" necessarily means a formal copyright notice doesn't marry up with what we actually see the NWS doing on weather.gov.
- There are really only two ways to reconcile the words of the disclaimer with what we see in actual practise:
- the long-standing belief is correct, but the NWS is incredibly, consistently bad at following their own rules, to the point where they practically never get it right. If this is true, then it's impossible to rely on the style of attributions on the site to tell us whether an image is in the public domain or not. or
- the long-standing belief is incorrect and "specifically annotated" just means attribution to a third party. If this is true, then it's impossible to rely on the style of attributions on the site to tell us whether an image is in the public domain or not.
- Rlandmann (talk) 14:02, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
More information
I emailed ODOT on September 7 about this image. I did get a reply that indicated a willingness to release the image, but when presented with the release template, they stopped responding. (VRT ticket:2024090610010381)
See also
- Commons:Deletion requests/File:Newton Falssa Damaged homes 1985-05-31.jpg -- a deletion request for another image from the same set.
No FoP for "graphic works" in the United Kingdom A1Cafel (talk) 09:50, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 12:43, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
No FoP for "graphic works" in the United Kingdom A1Cafel (talk) 09:50, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 12:43, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
No FoP for "graphic works" in the United Kingdom A1Cafel (talk) 09:50, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 12:43, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
No FoP for "graphic works" in the United Kingdom A1Cafel (talk) 09:51, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 12:43, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
No FoP for "graphic works" in the United Kingdom A1Cafel (talk) 09:56, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 12:44, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
No FoP for "graphic works" in the United Kingdom A1Cafel (talk) 09:56, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 12:44, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
No FoP for "graphic works" in the United Kingdom A1Cafel (talk) 09:56, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 12:44, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
No FoP for "graphic works" in the United Kingdom A1Cafel (talk) 09:58, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 12:44, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
No FoP for "graphic works" in the United Kingdom A1Cafel (talk) 09:58, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 12:44, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
No FoP for "graphic works" in the United Kingdom A1Cafel (talk) 09:58, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 12:44, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
No freedom of panorama in Indonesia A1Cafel (talk) 10:01, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 12:44, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
No source to verify the YT screenshots, the rest are from FB per MD
- File:Thumbnail YouTube Populer Daily Tika Weixun Di China 1.jpg
- File:Thumbnail YouTube Populer Daily Tika Weixun Di China 2.jpg
- File:Thumbnail YouTube Populer SHANTY DI CHINA 1.jpg
- File:Thumbnail YouTube Populer SHANTY DI CHINA 2.jpg
- File:Tika dan Weixun 2022.jpg
- File:Siti Saleha 2024.jpg
- File:Meerqeen 2024.jpg
- File:Fattah Amin 2023.jpg
- File:Shanty Di China 2024.jpg
- File:Shukri Yahaya 2024.jpg
- File:Wany Hasrita 2024.jpg
Gbawden (talk) 10:03, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 10:40, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
No freedom of panorama in Indonesia A1Cafel (talk) 10:08, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 12:44, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
No FoP for 3D works in the United States A1Cafel (talk) 10:11, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 10:40, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
No freedom of panorama in Morocco A1Cafel (talk) 10:14, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 12:44, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Bradergian (talk · contribs)
Film posters and others claimed as own work, PCP
- File:دربی شهرستان مهاباد موکریان گوکتپه.webm
- File:Pushpa - The Rise (2021 film) kurdi.png
- File:Sulthan 2021 poster kurdi.png
- File:Pogaru poster KURDI.png
- File:Bheeshma poster kurdi.png
- File:Sarileru N0eekevvaru kurdi.png
- File:ئارمان هەژیرنیاarman hazhirnia.jpg
- File:Dear Comrade kurdi.png
- File:Yajamana (2019 film) poster kurdi.png
- File:Devadas (2018) poster kurdi.png
- File:Geetha Govindam kurdi.png
- File:Chamak Kannada film kurdi.png
- File:Anjani Putra film poster kurdi.png
- File:Kirik Part Poster kurdi.png
- File:Chalorashmika.png
- File:Zhiyar mostafa navruz (1).jpg
Gbawden (talk) 10:18, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 10:41, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
There is no freedom of panorama in Ukraine and the photos violate sculptors and architects copyright. Created 1991. Derivatives of work - photo nonfree sculpture. No Permission from the sculptor. Микола Василечко (talk) 10:24, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 15:30, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Fairy26$bling (talk · contribs)
All claimed as own work, PCP
- File:Speak up for them.jpg
- File:What is it and it's culture.jpg
- File:Why not report it.jpg
- File:Why does this happen.jpg
- File:Statistics of Women Affected.jpg
- File:The Male Gender.jpg
- File:Shown Statistics.jpg
- File:Experiences of Men.jpg
Gbawden (talk) 10:31, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 10:44, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
Copyright violation. Uploaded as own work when it clearly isn't. Every other file uploaded by this user has been deleted as copyright violation. Bjarki S (talk) 10:33, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 10:44, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
Possible copyright violation. Entry says " Photo courtesy of the Poozeum" and "Own work". These seem unlikely without some real documentation tracing it to the source with proper licensing. RoySmith (talk) 11:03, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
- This may be uploaded by a worker/owner, the uploader's former username was "Poozeum". The nominated image is also used here from Guinness World Records with a watermark. File:The Poozeum.jpg seems to be the image uploaded to Google maps [5] by Poozeum. File:Precious the Coprolite Courtesy of the Poozeum.jpg is similar to an image on the GWR site that is also used on the Poozeum website, but with different lighting. The file also has a courtesy note in the title and in the Summary section. Other images can be seen at Special:ListFiles/YetiStuff. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 11:40, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
- My previous username was Poozeum, and I am the owner of the Poozeum Museum in Williams, Arizona. I also own the copyright to this image and I posted it on Commons for people to use. You can view other images of this specimen on the Poozeum’s website: https://poozeum.com/t-rex-poop
- There are no copyright issues with this image. Please remove the deletion request. Poozeum (talk) 13:08, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
- So it sounds like what this and the other images mostly need are a clearer statement of the provinance. We get lots of images marked "own work" which clearly aren't. If there was a link to where these images are on poozeum.com with a CC-SA-BY license statement, that would be irrefutable proof that the person who controlled that website was making the images available under that license. But I'll leave it to people who are more up on the details of commons licensing policy than I am to make the final call. RoySmith (talk) 16:33, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
Ticket:2024081410010313 has been received regarding to file(s) mentioned here. --Krdbot 22:00, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
Kept: Permission now OK. --Yann (talk) 10:45, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
Per COM:PACKAGING. ~Cybularny Speak? 11:55, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Min☠︎rax«¦talk¦» 04:43, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Atakhanli as Copyvio (copyvio) Yann (talk) 12:15, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Yann (talk) 07:14, 28 September 2024 (UTC)
wrong date, probably copyright violation, see https://soundcloud.com/musicofindependence/larkjkk62edl?in=vvcsh5kwhs5q/sets/i-1 Xocolatl (talk) 12:17, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 10:46, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Ahmadnejad (talk · contribs)
Dubious own-work claim: small size, user upload history (also no FOP in IRAN).
4nn1l2 (talk) 17:04, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 05:30, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Ahmadnejad (talk · contribs)
User blocked 3 times for copyright violations, unlikely to be own works.
- File:زهرا بهروز آذر.jpg
- File:Madanibajestani.jpg
- File:Madanibajestani2.jpg
- File:Hadi mohammadpour1.jpg
- File:Hadi mohammadpour12.jpg
- File:Hadi mohammadpour.jpg
- File:Dibatabatabei.jpg
- File:Dogharoon.jpg
Yann (talk) 12:25, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Fit India 14:53, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
Files uploaded by محمد قاسمی طبس (talk · contribs)
User with bad history, small files without EXIF, unlikely to be own works.
- File:Tabas masina mehrab.jpg
- File:Tabas masina.jpg
- File:Othman (2) othman (2).webp
- File:D1736530T15668298(web)(b).jpg
- File:جاذبه-تاریخی-طبس-قلعه-مسینا.jpg
- File:میدان زیبای امام رضا شهر طبس مسینا با آلمان آسباد.jpg
Yann (talk) 12:30, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Fit India 14:54, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
No publicator date or publication in source page https://web.archive.org/web/20150628152854/http://nasz-janow.blogspot.com/2014/12/tadeusz-michejda-cenne-dzieo-modernisty.html - we can't use pd-anon ايمو کي ڀڄايو (talk) 12:39, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Yann (talk) 10:46, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
no publication date, nor publicator, we can't use pd-anon licence ايمو کي ڀڄايو (talk) 12:41, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
- Polish National Archive NAC claims that this photo was published in 1934 in "Ilustrowany Kuryer Codzienny" and claims that the author is institucion collective: "The Kuyer Ilustrowany Codzienny Team". In Europe, a collective author retains their copyright for 70 years from publication, so since 2005 this photo has been in the public domain in Poland. I don't have time to look through over 700 issues of this daily right now for this particular photograph -- but I have no grounds to dispute the information provided by the Polish National Archive NAC; especially since there have been several cases when I have looked for photographs in the years indicated by the NAC -- and I have always found them. Wieralee (talk) 15:41, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Yann (talk) 10:48, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
no publication date, nor publicator, we can't use pd-anon licence ايمو کي ڀڄايو (talk) 12:42, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
- Polish National Archive NAC claims that this photo was published in 1931 in "Ilustrowany Kuryer Codzienny" and claims that the author is institucion collective: "The Kuyer Ilustrowany Codzienny Team". In Europe, a collective author retains their copyright for 70 years from publication, so since 2002 this photo has been in the public domain in Poland. I don't have time to look through over 700 issues of this daily right now for this particular photograph -- but I have no grounds to dispute the information provided by the Polish National Archive NAC; especially since there have been several cases when I have looked for photographs in the years indicated by the NAC -- and I have always found them. Wieralee (talk) 15:40, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Yann (talk) 10:49, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
no publication date, nor publicator, we can't use pd-anon or pd-poland licence ايمو کي ڀڄايو (talk) 12:43, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Yann (talk) 10:51, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
no publication date, nor publicator, we can't use pd-anon or pd-poland licence ايمو کي ڀڄايو (talk) 12:46, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Yann (talk) 10:51, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
no publication date, nor publicator, we can't use pd-anon or pd-poland licence ايمو کي ڀڄايو (talk) 12:47, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Yann (talk) 10:52, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
Obvious copyvio. Article is open access, but no evidence that photos is CC. ايمو کي ڀڄايو (talk) 12:52, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Yann (talk) 10:55, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
Obvious copyvio - unclear info about licence at fototeka site. ايمو کي ڀڄايو (talk) 12:53, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Yann (talk) 10:56, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
no publication date, nor publicator, we can't use pd-anon or pd-poland licence ايمو کي ڀڄايو (talk) 12:53, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Yann (talk) 10:56, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
no publication date, nor publicator, we can't use pd-anon or pd-poland licence ايمو کي ڀڄايو (talk) 12:56, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Yann (talk) 10:57, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
"Image courtesy of NFL.com" Magog the Ogre (talk) 00:24, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
- Comment: See the licensing template, which specifically addresses "courtesy of" images hosted on National Weather Service servers, stating in part:
| “ | "However, the NWS sites also host non-NWS images which have been submitted by individuals: these are generally shown as "Courtesy of ...". Such images have explicitly been released to the public domain by the copyright owner as part of the upload process...The information on government servers are in the public domain, unless specifically annotated otherwise..." | ” |
- Thus, this image became public domain once it was hosted on National Weather Service servers without a specific copyright notice. An example of images hosted on National Weather Service servers that have their copyright held can be found here, with the annotation shown. The page hosting this image has no specific copyright annotation, only the "courtesy of" tag referred to in the licensing template. Ks0stm (T•C•G) 04:45, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
- OK I withdraw then. Magog the Ogre (talk) 05:04, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
Kept. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 21:16, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
The last deletion request of this file in December 2010 was withdrawn on the basis of the wording of the {{PD-NWS}} template, which we now know to be flawed. (See this recent DR for details.)
But this image in particular is credited by the NWS to NFL.com. The original image can be found here (you might need to click/swipe through to image 20/20 to find it.)
Unsurprisingly, the NFL's copyright policy is long, detailed, and restrictive. The version in force at the time this file was uploaded to Commons is archived here and says (among very many other things):
"We own or license all copyright rights in the text, images, photographs, video, audio, graphics, user interface, and other content provided on the Services, and the selection, coordination, and arrangement of such content (whether by us or by you), to the full extent provided under the copyright laws of the United States and other countries. Except as expressly provided in this Agreement, you are prohibited from copying, reproducing, modifying, distributing, displaying, performing or transmitting any of the contents of the Services for any purposes, and nothing otherwise stated or implied in the Services confers on you any license or right to do so." (emphasis mine)
Without any evidence of permission where the NFL transferred their copyright of this photo into the public domain, we can't keep this file. Rlandmann (talk) 13:06, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
| Closing admins should familiarise themselves with the evidence and discussions at this RfC when closing this request. |
- No, look again. If you scroll through the 20 images in the gallery on the NFL website, you'll see that the various images in there are credited to a variety of different sources, including the AP, the NFL, and various individually named photographers. This image is number 20/20 in the carousel, and is specifically credited "NFL". FWIW, during my research, I also checked the AP archive, but it isn't in there. (Not that we can assume that ever AP photo ever is in there, but for this image, it means that there's nothing there that contradicts the NFL identifying itself as the owner of the photo).
- In any case, we now have evidence that "specific annotation" on weather.gov can indeed take the form of a simple "Courtesy of" caption.
- I'd say that at this point, the onus is on anyone who wants to keep this image to reach out to the NFL and ask them if they ever released this into the public domain. --Rlandmann (talk) 20:57, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
- That is not evidence to me. That is just you trying to disregard precedent in my opinion. Either way, others may or may not agree with me and that is fine. I know it is in the public domain, so that is what matters. Whether the Commons keeps a public domain, free to use photograph or get rid of it is not my problem. I presented my case and explained how it is public domain. Up to the closing administrator in the end to decide, not either of us. WeatherWriter (talk) 21:00, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
Speedy delete; even though it isn’t an NFL photo; it is still an image from a source with a known copyright policy. The Associated Press is still very strict.WestVirginiaWX (talk) 21:30, 11 August 2024 (UTC)- Regardless of whether it came from the NFL or the AP; it’s still copyrighted. The only difference would be who the copyright owner is. My speedy delete vote still stands. WestVirginiaWX (talk) 21:31, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
- This at least comes close multiple criteria for speedy deletion. WestVirginiaWX (talk) 21:35, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
- I see three different things that warrant speedy deletion with this: F1 (clear copyright violation); F2 (fair use content); and F6 (license laundering) WestVirginiaWX (talk) 21:38, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
- If I knew how; I’d probably tag it for speedy deletion myself. WestVirginiaWX (talk) 21:40, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
- I see three different things that warrant speedy deletion with this: F1 (clear copyright violation); F2 (fair use content); and F6 (license laundering) WestVirginiaWX (talk) 21:38, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
- This at least comes close multiple criteria for speedy deletion. WestVirginiaWX (talk) 21:35, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
- Regardless of whether it came from the NFL or the AP; it’s still copyrighted. The only difference would be who the copyright owner is. My speedy delete vote still stands. WestVirginiaWX (talk) 21:31, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
- Sure; but do you concur that this image originally belonged to the NFL, not the AP? --Rlandmann (talk) 21:40, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
- Regardless of which one; it is still a clear copyright violation. F1 for sure. WestVirginiaWX (talk) 21:47, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
- Personally; the NWS credited it to the NFL, so I concur that it’s probably the NFL that is the copyright owner; even if the AP took it. WestVirginiaWX (talk) 21:48, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
- Just added a speedy delete tag too. Based on the high likelihood of F1 criteria being met. WestVirginiaWX (talk) 17:20, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
- Furthermore, the website it was found on leads to a 404 error. WestVirginiaWX (talk) 17:22, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
- Just added a speedy delete tag too. Based on the high likelihood of F1 criteria being met. WestVirginiaWX (talk) 17:20, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
- Personally; the NWS credited it to the NFL, so I concur that it’s probably the NFL that is the copyright owner; even if the AP took it. WestVirginiaWX (talk) 21:48, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
- Regardless of which one; it is still a clear copyright violation. F1 for sure. WestVirginiaWX (talk) 21:47, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
- That is not evidence to me. That is just you trying to disregard precedent in my opinion. Either way, others may or may not agree with me and that is fine. I know it is in the public domain, so that is what matters. Whether the Commons keeps a public domain, free to use photograph or get rid of it is not my problem. I presented my case and explained how it is public domain. Up to the closing administrator in the end to decide, not either of us. WeatherWriter (talk) 21:00, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
- Do you have any evidence that the Associated Press, a for profit news/photojournalism company, tends to release their photos for hire into the public domain? If you can’t find evidence that they routinely do that, why should we believe that this one was? We don’t get to trust (random commons user) or even an organization like the NWS - unless there is proof the AP (or NFL, if they bought the copyright to it from AP) released it into the public domain, it is not such just because you want it to be and someone who didn’t own the copyright published it online claiming it was.Otherwise, under your ideas, I would be able to take any photo I find anywhere (online or offline) and post it on a website saying “the photos on this website are public domain unless specified otherwise”, and magically make those public domain even if I didn’t own the copyright? Berchanhimez (talk) 20:13, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
- No I don’t. WestVirginiaWX (talk) 23:16, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
- I have zero evidence that they released it into the public domain. None. WestVirginiaWX (talk) 20:33, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
- No I don’t. WestVirginiaWX (talk) 23:16, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
- Delete - enough of a question over its copyright status. Whether it was credited to the AP or the NFL doesn't matter - neither organization routinely releases images they take into the public domain. So absent proof of this image's public domain status, it should be deleted per the precautionary principle. Berchanhimez (talk) 23:40, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
- Keep per WeatherWriter Sir MemeGod ._. (talk - contribs) 17:34, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
- User:Yann deleted it per F1 speedy deletion criterion. This discussion probably needs to be closed since the image is already deleted. WestVirginiaWX (talk) 23:16, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
- Update: the speedy deletion was reverted; and this discussion has been reopened. Pinging all involved editors (except the one who reopened it) and a few more @Berchanhimez @Rlandmann @Sir MemeGod @WeatherWriter @ChrisWx @Hurricanehink @Jmabel @Ks0stm @Jameslwoodward @Pieter Kuiper WestVirginiaWX (talk) 20:32, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
- Even if this isn’t a copyvio; precautionary principle definitely applies. WestVirginiaWX (talk) 19:18, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
- Update: the speedy deletion was reverted; and this discussion has been reopened. Pinging all involved editors (except the one who reopened it) and a few more @Berchanhimez @Rlandmann @Sir MemeGod @WeatherWriter @ChrisWx @Hurricanehink @Jmabel @Ks0stm @Jameslwoodward @Pieter Kuiper WestVirginiaWX (talk) 20:32, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
- User:Yann deleted it per F1 speedy deletion criterion. This discussion probably needs to be closed since the image is already deleted. WestVirginiaWX (talk) 23:16, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
Neutral I’m acknowledging WeatherWriter’s argument, but the NFL is real touchy about their copyrights, so I can’t give a support to keep or delete. ChessEric (talk) 06:13, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
_(cropped).jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_with_Banner_of_Ayatollah_Khomeini_-_Tehran_-_Iran_(7383352872).jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
-131324.jpg){kind=link}
-131324_(cropped).jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_Stopthesilence_Brexit_(33180171781).jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_01.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_kronolojisi.jpg){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.webp){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
_(cropped).jpg){kind=link}
_(cropped).jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
-131324.jpg){kind=link}
-131324.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_Stopthesilence_Brexit_(33180171781).jpg){kind=link}
_Stopthesilence_Brexit_(33180171781).jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_kronolojisi.jpg){kind=link}
_kronolojisi.jpg){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
Speedily deleted by user:Yann for meeting F1 and F6 speedy deletion criteria. Non admin closure. WestVirginiaWX (talk) 23:21, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
- I reverted my closure. Yann (talk) 19:04, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
- Then we should assume that this discussion has been reopened. WestVirginiaWX (talk) 20:24, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
- The bigger question first would be whether it was registered with the copyright office within five years. Even if it was published prior to March 1, 1989; it would still be non-free if registered by March 1, 1994. WestVirginiaWX (talk) 23:13, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
- And to add to @WestVirginiaWX (now @Hurricane Clyde) comment: it is likely to be very difficult to determine whether or not it was published within that three month window and not registered. Hurricane Clyde 🌀my talk page! 17:43, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
- Good question, and I've put in a bit of research time to get an answer. Web sources don't help much, so I've tested the hypothesis that this photo appeared in newspaper coverage of the time.
- I checked the top 100 hits for contemporary coverage of this game on newspapers.com. The hits covered 61 separate papers, some of which ran coverage on multiple pages and/or over multiple days. Most of the newspapers I checked ran a photo from the Associated Press (not surprisingly; one example[7]), and a few ran a different one from the UPI newswire.
- But none ran this photo, and it's probably worth keeping in mind that this is possibly the least visually interesting or newsworthy photo taken of that game.
- If anyone wants to keep this photo on the grounds of its copyright not being properly registered, it's now over to you (per COM:ONUS) to show where this photo was published between December 31, 1988 and March 1, 1989. We can then investigate its registration status together. --Rlandmann (talk) 23:27, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
- The bigger question first would be whether it was registered with the copyright office within five years. Even if it was published prior to March 1, 1989; it would still be non-free if registered by March 1, 1994. WestVirginiaWX (talk) 23:13, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
- We are talking about the lawsuit-happy NFL though. Just saying. Hurricane Clyde 🌀my talk page! 05:40, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
- TBH, that shouldn't be relevant. The principle at play is whether we can be sure, beyond significant doubt, that the copyright owner surrendered their rights to the image, not "what can we get away with?"
- That's probably the part that has dismayed me the most about these discussions. Even before I decided to take a close look at this chaos, a doctrine had emerged that "Getty might get mad with us, we'd better respect their copyrights" while at the same time, being quite happy to ignore the rights of less powerful and less aggressive people and organisations, whose images the NWS captioned exactly the same way for the most part.
- It's even more problematic when some of them are small professional or semi-professional photographers trying to make some kind of income out of their images and whom a false public domain assertion here has far greater capacity to harm than the likes of Getty. Legal arguments aside, "can we get away with it?" is a wholly unethical position. (Not directed at you, Hurricane Clyde, but at a way of thinking that has emerged around these images). --Rlandmann (talk) 12:36, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
- I know it shouldn’t be relevant. But I decided to put that statement about the “lawsuit-happy NFL” because WeatherWriter continues to claim that the general disclaimer is enough; which is clearly and unambiguously not the case. Hurricane Clyde 🌀my talk page! 20:32, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
- Furthermore @WeatherWriter; they renominated the file. Hurricane Clyde 🌀my talk page! 02:03, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
- I know it shouldn’t be relevant. But I decided to put that statement about the “lawsuit-happy NFL” because WeatherWriter continues to claim that the general disclaimer is enough; which is clearly and unambiguously not the case. Hurricane Clyde 🌀my talk page! 20:32, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
- We are talking about the lawsuit-happy NFL though. Just saying. Hurricane Clyde 🌀my talk page! 05:40, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Pi.1415926535 (talk) 22:32, 25 September 2024 (UTC)
Probable copyright violation. The uploader has specified that this was taken from Bristol City Council's 'Know Your Place' website - here's the original, where there is no obvious indication that it is licensed CC-BY-SA as stated on the Commons page. I can find no evidence that Know Your Place content is routinely CC-BY-SA licensed, but they do state that Any information submitted to Know Your Place by a member of the public remains the property of the individual and is used on the website with their permission. Steinsky (talk) 13:50, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 10:58, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
Same reason given as the nomination for File:KYP millstones Coombe Mill.jpg - suspected copyvio, no evidence provided for CC-BY-SA license. (Here is the original.) Steinsky (talk) 13:54, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 10:58, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
Per COM:FOP Japan. This photo was taken in Akihabara, Japan, and Tetsujin 28-go is not in the public domain. IDCM (talk) 14:17, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 10:58, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Per COM:FOP Italy. This photo was probably taken in Italy. Although the main subject is the actor, the Fist of the North Star illustration also takes up a large part of the photo. IDCM (talk) 14:18, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 15:30, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
Per COM:FOP Japan. This is a statue of Kenshiro from Fist of the North Star in Japan. Although the statue takes up a small area of the photo, it appears to be the main subject. IDCM (talk) 14:18, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 02:51, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Per COM:FOP Japan. This photo was taken in Japan and prominently features a poster depicting copyrighted characters. IDCM (talk) 14:18, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 10:59, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
Because it is a selfie which is not used in any article PlayTesting (talk) 14:20, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
Kept: Not a selfie. --Yann (talk) 10:59, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
Files from Our Movie Guide
- File:Aaron Stanford 2024 Deadpool & Wolverine.png
- File:Brianna Hildebrand 2024 Deadpool & Wolverine.png
- File:Emma Corrin 2024 Deadpool & Wolverine.png
- File:Karan Soni 2024 Deadpool & Wolverine.png
- File:Kevin Feige 2024 Deadpool & Wolverine.png
- File:Leslie Uggams 2024 Deadpool & Wolverine.png
- File:Lewis Tan 2024 Deadpool & Wolverine.png
- File:Matthew Macfadyen 2024 Deadpool & Wolverine.png
- File:Morena Baccarin 2024 Deadpool & Wolverine.png
- File:Paul Wernick 2024 Deadpool & Wolverine.png
- File:Paul Wernick and Rhett Reese 2024 Deadpool & Wolverine.png
- File:Returning Deadpool Cast.png
- File:Rob Delaney 2024 Deadpool & Wolverine.png
- File:Rob Simonsen 2024 Deadpool & Wolverine smile cropped.png
- File:Rob Simonsen 2024 Deadpool & Wolverine smile portrait.png
- File:Rob Simonsen 2024 Deadpool & Wolverine smile wide.png
- File:Rob Simonsen 2024 Deadpool & Wolverine wide.png
- File:Rob Simonsen 2024 Deadpool & Wolverine.png
Per previous discussion, Our Movie Guide videos are license-laundered: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Deadpool & Wolverine New York World Premiere Cast Arrivals.webm --Di (they-them) (talk) 14:22, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
- Speedy Delete per above. BarntToust (talk) 12:22, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 11:00, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
Strictly speaking, source is the band and not the JMSDF. I don't think the {{GJSTU-2.0}} license applies here, as the band's website seems to be administered separately from the JMSDF's. Yasu (talk) 14:56, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 12:44, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
Stained glass project by w:pl:Placyda Bukowska, died in 1974. No FoP in Poland.
- File:Bialystok Kościół Świętego Rocha 04.jpg
- File:Kościół św Rocha w Białymstoku - Witraż.jpg
- File:Kościół św. Rocha w Białymstoku - wnętrze2.jpg
- File:Sosnowski St Roch 80.jpg
- File:Sosnowski St Roch 90.jpg
- File:Wnętze kościoła parafialnego p.w. Chrystusa Króla i św. Rocha w Białymstoku A-193 z 12.03.1975 -Magkrys.JPG
ايمو کي ڀڄايو (talk) 15:20, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 15:30, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
Dubious license: Unlikely to be uploaders own work, impossible to be taken in 2023, given that the subject of the photograph died in 1997. Bujo (talk) 15:44, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 11:02, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
Dubious license: Unlikely to be uploaders own work, impossible to be taken in 2023, given that the subject of the photograph died in 1989. Bujo (talk) 15:46, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 11:02, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
Out of scope (and unused); does not show what it purports to, per [8] Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:52, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 11:02, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
Undelete in 2028. A sound recording fixed in 1927 is copyrighted for 100 years after fixation. Please see the own license attached to this file. SDudley (talk) 15:52, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 11:03, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
Duplicate of Во напад.jpg Rudermeister (talk) 16:50, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 11:03, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
No freedom of panorama in Benin A1Cafel (talk) 17:23, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 12:44, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
No FoP for 2D works in the United States A1Cafel (talk) 17:24, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 12:45, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
These German Notgeld (emergency money) bills from the 1920s are works of Max Böttcher, who died in 1966. So they are not in the public domain in Germany yet, and the files should be deleted. They can be restored in 2037.
Rosenzweig τ 18:05, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Wdwd (talk) 13:39, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Ericallums2007 (talk · contribs)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Jacknjellify and for other file i believe not notable. remove all plz
modern_primat ඞඞඞ ----TALK 18:24, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 11:05, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
Out of com:scope. Jonteemil (talk) 18:31, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
.webp){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 11:06, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
.webp){kind=link}
The file was accidentally uploaded using the incorrect version of Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike. Viroix (talk) 18:36, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion: license OK, in use. --Yann (talk) 11:07, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
Files in Category:FC Torpedo Moscow
Possibly above COM:TOO Russia#Logos which is unclear. Two of these files are licensed as {{PD-art}} but I think that license too needs to be verified.
Jonteemil (talk) 18:49, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
- I've found an archived page[9] of the given source in File:Logo torpedo.png, but all it seems to say is that the club took on the name "Torpedo" in 1936, but not that it's the time that the logo came to exist or that Вячеслав Орлов (Vyacheslav Orlov) was the author of the logo. This website does state that the logo was created in 1936. And this site names Orlov as the author (however, this source might not qualify as a reliable source). Orlov died in 1995 according to Russian Wikipedia[10]. This doesn't sound like the PD-art license is justified. Nakonana (talk) 22:51, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Pi.1415926535 (talk) 22:30, 25 September 2024 (UTC)
COM:PACKAGING, No evidence that the uploader is the copyright owner of the image on the package(s). ManOfTheArk (talk) 18:58, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
Kept: Logo is simple. --Yann (talk) 11:08, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
Possible copyvio: Low resolution image missing full EXIF data, dubious claim of own work, From Facebook, VRT requested https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Wikimedia_VRT_release_generator CoffeeEngineer (talk) 19:07, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 11:09, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Nayer Nekkar (talk · contribs)
{{No permission since|month=August|day=11|year=2024}}
CoffeeEngineer (talk) 19:18, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 11:09, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
Files in Category:Tux_icons based on Tux-G2.png
- File:TUX G2.svg
- File:TUX-G2-SVG.svg
- File:Alternate Kubuntu logo.png
- File:TuxOSX.png
- File:Oisux.png
- File:Pinux.jpg
- File:TuX Le Marocain.png
- File:Tux-chelsea.png
- File:Battons-nous avec Tux.png
The license for Tux-G2, which these images are based on, is non-commercial only as indicated in this previous deletion request. A similar request was also filed in 2017. --Anwon (talk) 19:15, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
copyright violation Masti (talk) 19:31, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
.png){kind=link}
Kept: no valid reason for deletion: {{PD-textlogo}}, in use. --Yann (talk) 11:09, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
.png){kind=link}
Per COM:PACKAGING. ~Cybularny Speak? 19:53, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 11:10, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
And File:Franciscus-Geneva-2018-v.jpg.
Missing evidence that the uploader is the coin sculptor Daniela Longo. -- Asclepias (talk) 19:56, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 15:30, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
Sehr wahrscheinlich kein eigenes Werk. Gründung 1993 oder 1893? Demnach: Copyright? GerritR (talk) 20:05, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
- 1993 according to their website[11]. Nakonana (talk) 23:01, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination & discussion. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 02:52, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
Photo of Halla Tómasdóttir (supposedly)
Extremely poor quality. Could be anyone, face is not recognizable. Not usable, out of scope.
Gestumblindi (talk) 20:06, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 11:10, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
the license ( https://www.minoden.com/link/link-2.html ) is not compatible the CC-by-SA v3 (and / or COM:L). eien20 (talk) 20:09, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 11:10, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
the license ( http://tamagazou.machinami.net/setsumei.htm ) don't permit commercial use.
eien20 (talk) 20:14, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
- このふたつの建築物ですが「岐阜パルコ」はすでに閉店後解体され現存しません。「岐阜メルサ」はビルは残っていますが、すでに閉店しました。資料的価値のある物だと思いますので、残されることを望みます。 鶴巻温泉 (talk) 09:59, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
- 「商用利用が許可されていない」ため受け入れできません (参照: COM:L)。 資料的価値は問題ではありません。 --eien20 (talk) 20:30, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 11:11, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
duplicate with smaller file - https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Sinalepa_kalmistu_2048.jpg Kalle Pihelgas (talk) 20:52, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion: we keep the bigger file. --Yann (talk) 11:12, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
Is a screenshot from a TV interview. Which was released with permission from the interviewers estate but it is unknown who the copyright holder is, and whether they consent to the video being released under Creative Commons Mewhen123 (talk) 20:52, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
.png){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. --Pi.1415926535 (talk) 22:31, 25 September 2024 (UTC)
.png){kind=link}
Copyvio, official Paris Olympics logo which exceeds COM:TOO France. Consigned (talk) 22:14, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 11:13, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
