This just seems suspect to me. This is clearly labeled as being from a photoshoot, and the subject seems to be looking directly at the camera, but it is uploaded as own work. Also, I've been able to find this image and several others clearly from the same photoshoot on the web, and they all have the same weird cropped corner, as if there was maybe a watermark or something there and they cropped it out. I simply cannot think of another reason to crop in such an odd way. Just Step Sideways (talk) 01:08, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
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)
Delete per above - with the obvious caveat that ODOT may be willing to release this image into public domain and any editor is free (as always) to ask them to do so. But as of now, no evidence this is sufficiently licensed for Commons. Berchanhimez (talk) 23:42, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Per the disclaimer linked at the bottom on the webpage, "The information on National Weather Service (NWS) Web pages are in the public domain, unless specifically noted otherwise, and may be used without charge for any lawful purpose...The information on National Weather Service Web servers and Web sites is in the public domain, unless specifically annotated otherwise, and may be used freely by the public." Given this disclaimer, several reliable source media outlets use the photograph under a public domain license, even citing NWS or NOAA as the source for the image including: The Philadelphia Inquirer, Cleveland, US Tornadoes, and funny enough, the Ohio State Government uses the photo, citing the source as NWS. If the Ohio State government is using the photograph & says NWS is the source, it is public domain. WeatherWriter (talk) 23:50, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The fact others have violated its copyright does not mean we can do that. Commons does not rely on "implicit" evidence of copyright status as you want them to do. Berchanhimez (talk) 23:55, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I will give you a chance to strike and amend your statement, given you have put words in my mouth. Please strike/amend your statement to not attack me by putting words in my mouth. WeatherWriter (talk) 00:01, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say you said anything. You are using implicit evidence (such as other sources using the photo) - that is not acceptable on Commons as proof of copyright status. The mere fact other sources have also violated copyright does not mean we do on Commons. It is not an attack to point out that your statement was based solely on implicit evidence, which is not sufficient. Berchanhimez (talk) 00:09, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that The Philadelphia Inquirer, Cleveland.com, US Tornadoes,(not a reliable source, but anyway...) and the Ohio State Government incorrectly attribute the image to the NWS should tell us something about the perils of relying on such third-party attributions. If, as you claim, the image was in the public domain, then the correct attribution should be "Public domain", and perhaps the ODOT as a courtesy. If, as I claim, the image is not in the public domain, then the attribution should be "ODOT" or "ODOT via NWS". But either way, "NWS" is demonstrably and obviously wrong and only exemplifies the unreliability of this approach to evaluating the copyright and licensing status of any of these images. --Rlandmann (talk) 00:55, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And plus; those newspapers could have gotten express permission from ODOT. Using that as a rationale would majorly go against the precautionary principle. That amounts to an “I can get away with it because it’s ‘common property’ and found all over the internet” argument. WestVirginiaWX (talk) 18:35, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Clearly we’ve got contradictory statements. Either the federal government is wrong or the state of Ohio is wrong. I think the latter is because it is east to confuse stuff on NWS servers for NWS created stuff (and misrepresent the NWS as the owner rather than ODOT); it clearly underscores the danger of such assumptions. WestVirginiaWX (talk) 18:40, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Closing admins should familiarise themselves with the evidence and discussions at this RfC when closing this request.
Keep For the following reasons:
The image originates from this web site by the National Weather Service (NWS). The NWS noted the photo was, "courtesy ODOT District 4". Per the disclaimer linked at the bottom on the webpage, "The information on National Weather Service Web servers and Web sites is in the public domain, unless specifically annotated otherwise, and may be used freely by the public." We have confirmed evidence this image exists on a web site as well as the web servers of the National Weather Service (weather.gov).
The NWS disclaimer also states, "Third-party information and imagery are used under license by the individual third-party provider. [...] Please contact the third-party provider for information on your rights to further use these data/products." See instances of usage below:
To me, all the things above, along with the previous deletion request being closed as "Keep", point to this image being in the public domain. Arguments for possible deletion would have to argue RS media, with editorial reviews, along with the direct Ohio State Government, failed to actually follow the disclaimer and illegally "license laundered". If clear evidence of the aforementioned was presented, then my vote would switch to delete. However, I highly doubt RS media along with a state government would fail to follow the disclaimer in its entirety, which helps provide evidence that this photo is free-to-use. WeatherWriter (talk) 02:40, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete For the following reasons:
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,[2] and we have no explicit evidence from either the ODOT who created the image, or the NWS who published it, that copyright was ever relinquished. Nor do we have evidence that this image was published prior to March 1, 1989 without a copyright notice or registration, which would make it ineligible for other reasons. --Rlandmann (talk) 04:20, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To throw the question out there since we should cover all basis, what is our evidence ODoT is the photographer? NWS? We have the Ohio State government and RS media saying NWS took the photo. If you are arguing we cannot trust the NWS disclaimer, then why can we trust the NWS’s authorship? Why not trust the Ohio State Government, who says the U.S. federal government is the photographer? In short: Besides NWS’s word (which the deletion request is basically whether or not “their word” can be trusted), what proof do we have that ODot took the photo? WeatherWriter (talk) 04:28, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Good question!
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.
Comment I must take issue with the allegation against me, "The closing admin admitted that the last DR had been improperly closed by counting !votes instead of applying copyright law and Commons policy." I closed it according the information I had in front of me in the deletion request itself. I was at the time unaware of Commons:Requests for comment/Third-party images published by the National Weather Service and the listing did nothing to make me aware of the existence of such additional discussion elsewhere. As I stated on my talk page [3] "If there are other factors &/or you think my closure was wrong, I have no objection to reopening discussion." If the user has issues with me I suggest they bring it to my talk page, or if they think appropriate start a listing about me at Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems. Now if you please let's get back to discussing the copyright status of images without personal snark. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 14:36, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry Infrogmation. No snark was intended, but on a re-read, my words were indeed harsh. I've struck that comment and re-focused it on the actual rebuttal. That's my bad and I hope you can forgive me. --Rlandmann (talk) 20:00, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Image is sourced to ODOT and there is no evidence they aren't the creator of the image. It doesn't matter what you think about whether someone else would've violated the copyright intentionally or not. The bottom line is that there is more than enough doubt over its status that the precautionary principle applies. The fact that other people or organizations have not applied a precautionary principle of their own doesn't mean we can fail to do so also. The mere fact that others have failed to confirm the copyright status does not give us the right to do so. All of the arguments in the prior DR apply still and need to be considered by the eventual close of this discussion. Berchanhimez (talk) 07:30, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Keep It's a photo of a shop, any graphics are incidental and not the subject pof the image (and not clearly visible anyway) Sionk (talk) 17:24, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's a street scene, the adverts are incidental to it. On the nominator's rule of thumb we'd have no photos of Times Square. Sionk (talk) 17:59, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a gallery page: with only one photo. In my opinion a gallery page has a lot of images and the purpose is "to present readers with a structured and meaningful collection of the media found here on Wikimedia Commons" (see Commons:Galleries). This gallery page does not meet these criteria. JopkeB (talk) 05:01, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The statue was completed in 1975 by Agustín de la Herrán Matorras (1932–). There is no freedom of panorama in Ecuador, permission from the sculptor is required.
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 Flim is a part of 1990's American Film Technologies colorized edition. His upload again, May I possibly suggest that account should be Indefinite blocks. ConcededBear657 (talk) 01:53, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The image is an almost exact copy of this image, Original black and white title with the only difference being the coloring of the image, which is a really simple coloring and is below the threshold of originality. Under US copyright law, colorizing entire movies generates a new copyright, but not the colorization of individual frames, nor the text shown in the image which is too simple to attract copyright. The New Foxy (talk) 06:05, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Antigua and Barbuda was a British associated state from 1967–1981, with a governor. File:Coat of arms of Antigua and Barbuda.svg was introduced in 1967. All British governors had a flag with the territorial coat of arms or badge in the centre of the Union Flag. Just what was the governor's flag, if not this? What is your source that it is fake? FOTW sources this flag as real. Fry1989eh?14:45, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This file is of poor visual quality (unclear/blurry), and a clearer, higher-quality version of the same subject has already been uploaded. The new version better serves the purposes of Wikimedia Commons and its users. Adygrafix250 (talk) 16:18, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The only own work here is adding a red dot and the name of a village in caps. It is at best a derivative work of a copyrighted map pulled from the Internet. —Andreitalk08:18, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Per Commons:Deletion requests/File:Trump Mug Shot.webp for a Georgia county sheriff's office mugshot, if genuine: no grant in the license by the state to allow the unlimited creation of derivative works.
But I'm unable to confirm that the Sheriff's Office or Georgia Gazette even published this; the only working link provided is the SportsKeeda one in the description, a site dismissed by enwiki as "generally unreliable" for being "largely user-written". Belbury (talk) 08:33, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The own work is on top of an existing map, whose source is unspecified, and should be assumed to be copyrighted if no other clues exist. I hoped it would be OSM, which is free, but there are no indication towards that. —Andreitalk08:36, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Derivative work of a pre-existing map. Now, spelling and font choice suggests it may be an old map, which could even be old enough to be PD, but the source map should be specified. —Andreitalk08:39, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
1864 - Wallachia - Second military survey of the Habsburg Empire
"150 years ago, in 1864 a detailed map was made about Walachia, its title is Charta României Meridionale (Map of Southern Romania), it has 112 map sheets, it is often called after his draughtsman: Szathmári’s map. The map has an outstanding position in the history of Romanian cartography, because it indicates a turning-point. " RBucur (talk) 10:24, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Uploaded as an AI-generated picture but doesn't obviously look like one, and the uploader's other contribution was File:ONAM FESTIVEL.jpg, a piece of pre-existing clip art wrongly claimed as their own work. This may be a photograph of an uncredited painting. Belbury (talk) 09:42, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. File metadata says "Made with Google AI", and I'm inclined to believe that. As an AI-generated "painting", this image lacks educational value and is out of scope for the Wiki Loves Onam campaign. Omphalographer (talk) 21:37, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Keep Not art for me. Just a quick drawing made with color markers for a protest in the street. The quality is not there, at full size, the shapes and the details are very rough and simple. It is almost certain that this banner is in the garbage bin now the protest has finished, and not under a frame in a gallery or on the wall of a living room. But the {{PR}} template was missing, I've added it -- Basile Morin (talk) 08:08, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This picture was taken in the UK, notable for having a low threshold of originality. I would place this way above that threshold. The fact (more of a conjecture) that a work of art was temporary does not take it out of the scope of copyright. --bjh21 (talk) 23:29, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a gallery page: with only one photo. In my opinion a gallery page has a lot of images and the purpose is "to present readers with a structured and meaningful collection of the media found here on Wikimedia Commons" (see Commons:Galleries). This gallery page does not meet these criteria. JopkeB (talk) 10:20, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It was originally uploaded as a work of the US federal government, but there is no evidence for this.
The rationale was updated a few days later to say that it was covered by the weather.gov general disclaimer and/or a set of terms and conditions for uploading files to the NWS Sioux City office.
However, there is no evidence that this image was ever published on weather.gov, let alone to connect it to the Sioux City office.
This is not a gallery page: with only one photo. In my opinion a gallery page has a lot of images and the purpose is "to present readers with a structured and meaningful collection of the media found here on Wikimedia Commons" (see Commons:Galleries). This gallery page does not meet these criteria. JopkeB (talk) 10:32, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a gallery page: with only one photo. In my opinion a gallery page has a lot of images and the purpose is "to present readers with a structured and meaningful collection of the media found here on Wikimedia Commons" (see Commons:Galleries). This gallery page does not meet these criteria. JopkeB (talk) 10:39, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a gallery page: with only one photo. In my opinion a gallery page has a lot of images and the purpose is "to present readers with a structured and meaningful collection of the media found here on Wikimedia Commons" (see Commons:Galleries). This gallery page does not meet these criteria. JopkeB (talk) 10:39, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not replying for every page you nominated, so my answer here applies, mutatis mutandis, to your other nominations as well.
When I created this page back in the day, Middelharnis was still an independent municipality. I envisioned a system where every Dutch municipality would have its own page, and various places within that municipality would be included as headers. Even if there was only one image, there would be a fair chance that the page would grow into a real gallery later.
However, I did not pursue this system, partly because many other systems were used and other users didn't want to give up theirs. I also practically stopped uploading stuff to Commons. I have no idea what system - if any - Commons uses today, so if this page doesn't comply, go ahead and delete it.
Also, please stop bothering me about this. If you're deleting my files, I'd be happy to get notified and try to stop it; if it's about pages I created when your grandmother was young, I couldn't care less. Steinbach (talk) 11:06, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you that every Dutch municipality should have its own gallery page. But this gallery page was created in 2006 and ever since there was only one image in. So what did you have in mind when you created all these pages with just one image? Who would be going to add more images and would turn them into real gallery pages? Even the creator dropped out. So now it is time for cleaning up, so that people are no longer disappointed when they click on a link to such a nearly empty gallery page.
And we are NOT deleting files, that is another procedure. Only the gallery pages themselves are nominated for deletion, the files in them will be kept. (Personally I value these maps very much; when I make a gallery page about a Dutch populated place, I am always looking for such a map, they are very useful, so I shall not nominate them for deletion.) By the way, my grandmother was young about a century ago, so I doubt whether you created the pages then and I hope that you leave her out of this discussion. JopkeB (talk) 13:03, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I know we're not talking about deleting files. That's just what I'm saying. I'm asking you not to notify me about future deletion requests for individual pages. Steinbach (talk) 17:41, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am afraid that is not possible, even not when you remove those pages from your watchlist (volglijst). You get automatically a notification when you are the creator of a page that is nominated for deletion. I cannot prevent notifying. JopkeB (talk) 06:28, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a gallery page: with only one image. In my opinion a gallery page has a lot of images and the purpose is "to present readers with a structured and meaningful collection of the media found here on Wikimedia Commons" (see Commons:Galleries). This gallery page does not meet these criteria. JopkeB (talk) 10:42, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Gbawden Hi! I checked my photos again, and realized that I hadn't broken the rules. As an example, you can take a photo of a child with a Winnie the Pooh toy. It says "As virtually all photography is considered to involve at least a modicum of creativity on the part of the photographer", and my photos have a background that I made myself. I did not violate any copyrights, because these toys were bought by me, so I have the right to use them. Azizbek Karimov (talk) 11:26, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The issue isn't your photo but the object in your photo. The copyright of the toy cars belongs to Hot Wheels - please read COMːTOYS Gbawden (talk) 11:28, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The uploader states these 1930s and 1940s photographs as own work, althouh they are taken from the Internet and "own work" covers colorization only. They might be copyrighted, eg File:Četař František Peřina .jpg is available here via Alamy. Real sources and authors should be provided. –
This file is sourced to a National Weather Service website.
Such sites host a mixture of content created by the US federal government (public domain) and content created by businesses and private individuals (a wide variety of free and unfree licenses).
Copyright and licensing details of such third-party files is usually set out in the image captions.
Unfortunately, this image is no longer published by the NWS, and the only source information provided here is the URL of the image itself; we no longer have access to its copyright and licensing information.
Because we cannot verify that it is (or was ever) available under a free license, we must delete as a precaution unless the precise source and evidence of permission can be found.
Closing admins should familiarise themselves with the evidence and discussions at this RfC when closing this request.
This file is sourced to a National Weather Service website.
Such sites host a mixture of content created by the US federal government (public domain) and content created by businesses and private individuals (a wide variety of free and unfree licenses).
Copyright and licensing details of such third-party files is usually set out in the image captions.
Unfortunately, this image is no longer published by the NWS, and the only source information provided here is the URL of the image itself; we no longer have access to its copyright and licensing information.
Because we cannot verify that it is (or was ever) available under a free license, we must delete as a precaution unless the precise source and evidence of permission can be found.
Closing admins should familiarise themselves with the evidence and discussions at this RfC when closing this request.
This file is sourced to a National Weather Service website.
Such sites host a mixture of content created by the US federal government (public domain) and content created by businesses and private individuals (a wide variety of free and unfree licenses).
Copyright and licensing details of such third-party files is usually set out in the image captions.
Unfortunately, this image is no longer published by the NWS, and the only source information provided here is the URL of the image itself; we no longer have access to its copyright and licensing information.
Because we cannot verify that it is (or was ever) available under a free license, we must delete as a precaution unless the precise source and evidence of permission can be found.
Closing admins should familiarise themselves with the evidence and discussions at this RfC when closing this request.
This file is sourced to a National Weather Service website.
Such sites host a mixture of content created by the US federal government (public domain) and content created by businesses and private individuals (a wide variety of free and unfree licenses).
Copyright and licensing details of such third-party files is usually set out in the image captions.
Unfortunately, this image is no longer published by the NWS, and the only source information provided here is the URL of the image itself; we no longer have access to its copyright and licensing information.
Because we cannot verify that it is (or was ever) available under a free license, we must delete as a precaution unless the precise source and evidence of permission can be found.
Closing admins should familiarise themselves with the evidence and discussions at this RfC when closing this request.
This file is sourced to a National Weather Service website.
Such sites host a mixture of content created by the US federal government (public domain) and content created by businesses and private individuals (a wide variety of free and unfree licenses).
Copyright and licensing details of such third-party files is usually set out in the image captions.
Unfortunately, this image is no longer published by the NWS, and the only source information provided here is the URL of the image itself; we no longer have access to its copyright and licensing information.
Because we cannot verify that it is (or was ever) available under a free license, we must delete as a precaution unless the precise source and evidence of permission can be found.
Edit: a currently-hosted image has been found on weather.com -- I'm leaving this request open for now because although unattributed, it doesn't seem like an employee-generated image. --Rlandmann (talk) 22:26, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Closing admins should familiarise themselves with the evidence and discussions at this RfC when closing this request.
Abstain pending further information – I think this is a particular image that we should try to contact the NWS on for clarification. Will hold off on a !vote until that is done. Especially given how notable the image is. Hurricane Clyde 🌀my talk page!12:45, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wow! Thanks for the find! How did you track it down? I've just repeated my TinEye and Google Image searches and confirmed it doesn't show up in either of those for me?
This one doesn't look like an NWS photo to me, so yeah, hopefully someone interested in keeping this image (maybe you?) will reach out to with Wichita office to confirm its origin. --Rlandmann (talk) 20:07, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As for emailing the weather service; I’ll defer that to someone else just because I’m not really into email (try the email function on me and you’ll find out real quickly that I don’t have email enabled on my account). Hurricane Clyde 🌀my talk page!21:18, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think there were no color pictures in the 1940s, so this black and white photo can be the original image. Some admins like Joe M. or G. Swan's older brother were quite active in photo art in the fifth and sixth decades of the last century. Maybe the uploader is one of them with their old user name. My thoughts... 186.172.110.9000:44, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not convinced that this image is really from the 1940's. The one who uploaded it is not very reliable, so this might be a wrong year, too. Erik Wannee (talk) 09:45, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This image obviously reproduces a page from a magazine or a book. Though the uploader on Flickr tagged it with a free license, we can't be sure that they have any copyright over the image that was reproduced. -- Túrelio (talk) 12:55, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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.
A formal PR picture of Israeli drag performers. The photographer is mentioned in the file's details (in English) and in the bottom-right corner of the picture (in Hebrew). Without a proper VRT (formerly, OTRS) release note, it cannot stay in the Commons. Ldorfman (talk) 13:29, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A formal PR picture and the photographer is mentioned in the file's EXIF. It cannot stay in the Commons without a proper VRT (formerly, OTRS) release note. Ldorfman (talk) 13:38, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Uploader claimed that File:Silwerskermfees '24.jpg was their own work, where it had been posted previously on the subject's Instagram. Probably the same issue here, it's another photo of the same person in the same style. If the user is Simoné Pretorius, they need to go through COM:VRT (or update the photo descriptions on Instagram) if they want to release old social media photos under a free licence. Belbury (talk) 14:38, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a gallery page: with only one photo. In my opinion a gallery page has a lot of images and the purpose is "to present readers with a structured and meaningful collection of the media found here on Wikimedia Commons" (see Commons:Galleries). This gallery page does not meet these criteria. JopkeB (talk) 15:28, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a gallery page: with only one photo. In my opinion a gallery page has a lot of images and the purpose is "to present readers with a structured and meaningful collection of the media found here on Wikimedia Commons" (see Commons:Galleries). This gallery page does not meet these criteria. JopkeB (talk) 15:36, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a gallery page: with only one photo. In my opinion a gallery page has a lot of images and the purpose is "to present readers with a structured and meaningful collection of the media found here on Wikimedia Commons" (see Commons:Galleries). This gallery page does not meet these criteria. JopkeB (talk) 15:41, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a gallery page: with only one image. In my opinion a gallery page has a lot of images and the purpose is "to present readers with a structured and meaningful collection of the media found here on Wikimedia Commons" (see Commons:Galleries). This gallery page does not meet these criteria. JopkeB (talk) 15:57, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Possible copyright violation. This appears to be a copyrightable image owned by the Global Governance Institute, whose logo is in the corner. The uploader claims it is their own work. —Bkell (talk) 16:19, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Gerichte sagen ja (AIDA-Kussmund-Urteil, Berliner-Mauer-Urteil), laut diesen Urteilen ist die Eigenschaft "bleibend" sehr weit ausgelegt. Dagegen kenne ich kein einziges Urteil, was bei Wahlplakaten eine Panoramafreiheit verneint. Man möge mir eines nennen. Oder überhaupt irgendeinen Fall, in dem bei Wahlplakaten jemals ein rechtliches Problem aufgetreten wäre. --Stepro (talk) 17:33, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wahlplakate sind ebenso (wenig) bleibend wie der Verhüllte Reichstag, sie werden kurz nach der Wahl regelmäßig abgenommen, und das weiß ein Normalbürger auch (im Unterschied zu fest installierten Werbetafeln und Litfaßsäulen, bei denen die Dauer der Präsentation eben nicht absehbar ist). Damit können Wahlwerbeplakate nicht unter Rückgriff auf die Panoramafreiheit behalten werden. Grüße, Grand-Duc (talk) 17:51, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Und ich messe Gesetzen und höchstrichterlichen Urteilen deutlich mehr Gewicht bei, als Einzelmeinungen von Admins und Gnom. RPR wird von Dir hier als sog. Totschlagargument benutzt. Da Du keine valide externe Grundlage angibst, kann man dem nicht inhaltlich widersprechen, das ist unlauter. Stepro (talk) 18:48, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Inwiefern unterscheidet sich für dich ein Wahlplakat, das für etwa einen Monat in der Öffentlichkeit präsent ist und nach der gegenständlichen Wahl in den allermeisten Fällen abgenommen wird, von dem ebenfalls erkennbar nur zeitlich begrenzt vorhandenen und präsentierten Verhüllten-Reichstag-Kunstwerk? In beiden Fällen halte ich, wie oben gesagt, die Präsentation von vorne herein auf eine limitierte und im Vorfeld abschätzbare Dauer begrenzt, die nicht durch das Material bestimmt, sondern durch den Werber/Künstler festgelegt ist. Das ist der Unterschied zu Graffiti und "Standard-Werbeplakaten" (auch solche an Fahrzeugen), bei denen man eben als Passant nicht weiß oder wissen kann, wie lange die "Lebensdauer der Präsentation" ist. Das ist auch der Unterschied zu beispielsweise dem Aida-Kussmund, der auf Dauer in der Öffentlichkeit präsent ist.
COM:PRP ist eine valide projektinterne Grundlage, die dortigen Sätze 4 und 5 passen ganz gut: "Nobody knows who the copyright owner is, so it really doesn’t matter." / "The file is obviously common property. It can be found all over the internet and nobody has complained." Da ich, in meinen Augen plausibel, dargelegt habe, dass ein Verstoß gegen Urheberrechte anzunehmen ist, sollten wir als Gemeinschaft eben nicht darauf warten, ob jetzt eine politische Partei oder anderweitiger Urheberrechtsinhaber hinter den Plakaten ein Verfahren anstrengt oder darauf warten und hoffen, dass anderweitig eine gerichtliche Klärung erfolgt. Uns bleiben daher als nächstbeste Lösung nur die Ansichten der dafür konkret ausgebildeten Menschen, Anwälte, wie Gnom einer ist. Grüße, Grand-Duc (talk) 19:32, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Grand-Duc hat einen meines Erachtens sehr guten Vergleich vom Reichstags-Verhüllungs-Urteil zu den Wahlplakaten gezogen. Ansonsten habe ich auf im Forum versucht zu erklären, warum ich die Urteile in Sachen East Side Gallery und Aida-Kussmund für nicht anwendbar halte. Gnom (talk) 07:53, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Stepro: das AIDA-Urteil bezog sich auf das Kriterium "dauerhaft öffentlich zugänglich" und stellte darauf ab, ob ein wechselnder Ort das Kriterium der öffentlichen Ausstellung erfüllen würde. Wahlplakate wandern nicht in der Öffentlichkeit, sondern verschwinden nach dem Abbauen dauerhaft aus selbiger. Beim Berliner-Mauer-Urteil erklärt in Nr 24 „Das Gemälde ist dort für die Dauer seines Bestehens und nicht nur vorübergehend im Sinne einer zeitlich befristeten Ausstellung zu sehen (vgl. BGHZ 150, 6, 9 ff. - Verhüllter Reichstag).“ Wahlplakate können aufgrund ihrer Eigenschaft mehrere Jahre an einer Straßenlaterne überleben. Die meisten, wenn nicht sogar alle, wahlbezogenen Regeln erlauben nur die Aufhängung in einem konkret definierbaren Zeitraum. Für Erfurt in §5 Abs. 2 Stadtordnung geregelt, erlaubt das Plakatieren 2 Monate vor der Wahl bis 1 Woche danach. Wenn nicht solche konkrete Termine eine "zeitlich befristete Ausstellung" darstellen, was denn sonst? Delete Vielleicht findet kann ja hier die KAS auch wieder das Bild stiften. Quedel (talk) 10:58, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Question can this be considered an ephemeral work in Germany?
This would mean that it would not be allowed to document any political posters that were used in elections, and that it would not be allowed to show how political parties use posters in their election campaigns, and how they are displayed and look like. Consequently all files in all categories on election posters would have to be deleted. --Kryp (talk) 21:14, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Kryp: you are confusing what it is allowed to be published in a newspaper and what Commons' licensing policy allows. A newspaper can publish photos of elections posters and paintings of Picasso based on fair use, or other legal provisions. Commons on the other hand doesn't allow fair use content. Günther Frager (talk) 23:07, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So all images of political election posters must be deleted from Commons? What is the difference between this one and all the other ones? --Kryp (talk) 00:08, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Kryp: it is not all black and white. Some poster have only text, or use images in the public domain and therefore are not under copyright. Some posters are uploaded by the political parties with a free license. Of course, there are posters, like the ones in this image, that don't follow COM:L, they will eventually be part of a DR. You can check the DR about Wahlplakaten in the category German FOP cases. Günther Frager (talk) 00:40, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for explaining the background. You seem to assume that in this special case newspapers would be allowed to do something that Commons would not be allowed to do. The German law allows explicitly to take pictures of works that are displayed in public streets ([§ 59 Absatz 1 Urheberrechtsgesetz (UrhG): "Zulässig ist, Werke, die sich bleibend an öffentlichen Wegen, Straßen oder Plätzen befinden, mit Mitteln der Malerei oder Graphik, durch Lichtbild oder durch Film zu vervielfältigen, zu verbreiten und öffentlich wiederzugeben." (- It is permissible to reproduce, distribute and publicly display works that are permanently located on public paths, streets or squares by means of painting or graphics, photography or film.) In commentaries by experts (here an example) the term "bleibend" (permanent in the slightly inaccurate translation) is interpreted to apply in this context to political posters because they are displayed with the intention to stay several weeks explicitly for the public information ("bleibend" literally means "staying", which can have a temporal component depending on the individual situation, not all works need to stay for 3,000 years). It is also clear that the law does not distinguish between media - the law makes no difference between a newspaper, a broadcasting company or an online encyclopedia.
The application of this law to posters of election campaigns is also in the intention of the parties who display their posters, they do have an interest in distributing their information. The state on the other hand has an interest to allow the parties to display their posters in the public streets, communities are obligated to allow that (in Niedersachsen the corresponding Ministerialerlass (official instruction for communities by the federal state authority) requires that communities must allow this in all election campaigns). The political parties play an important role in the functioning of the state, so this interpretation of UrhG § 59 is in accordance with that. The political parties must obtain the opportunity in the election campaigns that their information gets distributed as far as possible without restrictions. This applies also to copyright restrictions, with the result that German television is allowed to show posters of political parties without a need to research licence issues and obtain permissions, whereas they are not allowed to show without restrictions the buildings of European institutions in Belgium. The press does not work under special regulations in terms of copyright considerations.
I do not think fair use is an issue here, and not a conflict of a copyright issue that is solved by the freedom of panorama. The political posters being the object as such are generally allowed to be photographed and shown.
As mentioned above, you would have to delete all images of political posters in Commons, taken at all occasions and in all federal states, with the effect that it would not be allowed to show how elections campaigns look like in public streets in Germany, and probably also elsewhere.
If posters can be uploaded by political parties with a free license for these photographs not being deleted, this would make it even worse. Parties could abuse this regulation and float Commons with their own posters, and by this way abuse the projects of the Wikimedia Foundation for political purposes. Other parties would be forced to do the same. --Kryp (talk) 21:30, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I hope I address your doubts:
I'm aware of that part of the German law. That article is about "freedom of panorama" (Panoramafreiheit in German literature) and I already specified it doesn't apply to temporal object (the "bleibend" term is used in the law). You can check the famous Supreme Court case about the Wapped Reichtag [4], a temporal public exhibition were postcards where forbidden, but the press was free to use images on their articles. It also states that "bleibend" is partially influenced by the intention of the authors.
It is clear that political parties intend to have such ads in the streets for a limited amount of time: until the election ends. You are citing a blog, and I can cite book that argue the contrary.
What you mention about the state interest in allowing parties to display their ads has nothing to do with copyright. Cities and towns have special billboards or allow parties to install ads in usually forbidden public places like trees. They don't force political parties to surrender their copyright nor oblige national or foreign websites to host them.
The press as I mentioned has a special treatment in the Urheberrechtsgesetz. You can read the law [5].
The argument "you cannot delete this image unless you delete these others" is not a valid reason to keep an image in a DR. Moreover, I already pointed you out there are a many similar images that were deleted under the same argument.
The political parties own the copyright of their own posters. They can decide if they want to license them under a free license or not. If they do, then we can host them. The rest of your argument is irrelevant.
Election posters are most likely not covered unter COM:FOP#Germany, as they are not permanently displayed in public places, only for the limited time frame around an election. A German High court case got a ruling against the application of the FoP in the substantially comparable case of the Wrapped Reichstag (Bundesgerichtshof, 2002, cf. Verhüllter Reichstag#Bildrechte). At least photographs of people or depictions of concise objects are best seen as copyrighted (precautionay principle).
Election posters are most likely not covered unter COM:FOP#Germany, as they are not permanently displayed in public places, only for the limited time frame around an election. A German High court case got a ruling against the application of the FoP in the substantially comparable case of the Wrapped Reichstag (Bundesgerichtshof, 2002, cf. Verhüllter Reichstag#Bildrechte). At least photographs of people or depictions of concise objects are best seen as copyrighted (precautionay principle). Grand-Duc (talk) 18:34, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
These are all election campaign posters in Germany with a design that is eligible for copyright. Unfortunately, freedom of panorama does not cover non-permanent installations. In some of these cases, the election poster is unproblematic but the photo covers another advertising poster where we have a problem.
Anders verhalte es sich aber, wenn der Berechtigte die Zeit der öffentlichen Aufstellung von vornherein auf einen Zeitraum begrenze, der kürzer als die natürliche Lebensdauer des Werkes sei. Dann befinde sich das Werk nicht bleibend an dem öffentlichen Standort, sondern sei nur vorübergehend der Öffentlichkeit gewidmet. Unerheblich sei dabei, ob das Werk nach seiner Entfernung fortbestehe oder ob es im Zuge der Deinstallation zerstört werde.
This means that if the lifetime of the election poster has a well-known limit that is known beforehand (shortly after the election in this case) which is shorter than the natural lifetime of the poster, then we have a non-permanent installation. --AFBorchert (talk) 19:59, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment @AFBorchert The above list of candidates contains two different types of poster media: firstly, non-permanent election posters (Kleinflächenplakate), which are put up by the parties themselves on trees and lampposts and are usually removed by the parties after the election. On the other hand, election advertising on large billboards (Großflächen-Plakatwand), which are permanently installed in public space in the same way as advertising columns. Does the sentence you quoted also apply to advertisements on such permanent advertising media? See COM:FOP Germany#Permanent: "There is some controversy in the literature over the permanent nature of posters on advertising columns and similar structures". Rio65trio (talk) 20:28, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep In addition to the argument raised by Stepro: In some of the listed images, the election posters do not contain any photographic images and are purely typographic in nature, and thus do not reach the threshold of originality (Schöpfungshöhe) under German copyright law. In some cases, the election poster or other visible advertising posters also play only an insignificant role in the image and thus should be Unwesentliches Beiwerk under § 57 German copyright law. Rio65trio (talk) 20:28, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Concretization of my remarks:
*In File:Anti-Gruenen-Plakat 2021 Frankfurt am Main 5.jpg the primary image subject (the election poster) is unproblematic, and of the additional advertising poster only an insignificant part can be seen at the left edge of the image, which also contains only trivial design elements. Not reaching COM:TOO, and COM:DM Germany.
*In File:Anti-Gruenen-Plakat 2021 Saarland.jpg an entire building is depicted and the primary image subject is the unproblematic election poster; the additional advertising poster below it is merely an insignificant accessory (§ 57 "Unwesentliches Beiwerk") according to German copyright law: It does not represent a characteristic feature of the overall image and could be replaced and the overall impression of the primary subject matter would not be affected. It also has no contextual relationship to the primary subject matter. Not reaching COM:TOO, and COM:DM Germany. Rio65trio (talk) 20:59, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Krd Could you please specify, where in the in the first image you identify copyrighted graphics that reaches TOO and is not DM Germany or Unwesentliches Beiwerk in German Copyright, and what you mean with „nothing is DM“ in the second image? Thanks, Rio65trio (talk) 02:43, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Vehicles themselves are considered to be permanently in public space, so perhaps also is the advertising on them. As the case may be, it is no argument for this discussion. --Krd14:27, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Krd These advertisements on vehicles are called traffic boards and the life span of these posters is comparable to the posters discussed here, the minimum occupancy is usually 1 month. Rio65trio (talk) 18:36, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
PS: And at least the large billboards (Großflächen) in the above list of candidates are also permanently installed in public space; unlike the vehicles, they are even statically located in the same place. In other words, these large billboards have the same permanent character as advertising columns. If they were not accepted as permanent installations, many images in this and in this category would also have to go. Rio65trio (talk) 14:08, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment @Jonatan Svensson Glad No connection between these examples. The Wrapped Reichstag was declared as an environmental artwork, and was created from the beginning only for the duration of 14 days. In contrast, at least the large billboards in the above list are permanent installations, which also do not claim to be an artwork. And by the way, in the case of Christos Wrapped Reichstag, the court did not prohibit all commercial use of photographs. Prohibited was the sale of postcards, against which Christo had sued, but not the commercial use e.g. by the press, which is allowed until today, see this article. --Rio65trio (talk) 22:54, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm mainly focusing on the osters put on light poles and the like, the billboards, I've not really had a look at. Regarding "not prohibit all commercial use " is still forbidding some commercial use, which would not be ok be Commons policy. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 23:34, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted: per nomination, AFBorchert, COM:PCP. None of the posters seem to be below the threshold of originality or de minimis to me, and that some were pasted on permanent structures does not make them permanent themselves. --Rosenzweigτ11:39, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Election posters are most likely not covered unter COM:FOP#Germany, as they are not permanently displayed in public places, only for the limited time frame around an election. A German High court case got a ruling against the application of the FoP in the substantially comparable case of the Wrapped Reichstag (Bundesgerichtshof, 2002, cf. Verhüllter Reichstag#Bildrechte). At least photographs of people or depictions of concise objects are best seen as copyrighted (precautionay principle).
Du scheinst gerade Urheberrechte mit Persönlichkeitsrechten zu verwechseln. Sahra Wagenknecht ist eine Person der Zeitgeschichte, stimmt, weswegen die unter vielen Bedingungen das Verbreiten von Bildern, auf denen sie zu sehen ist, dulden muss (im Gegensatz zu Otto Normalverbraucher). Das Argument "zeitgeschichtliche Relevanz" ist relevant für die urheberrechtliche Schranke der Berichterstattung über das Tagesgeschehen, die aber für Commons unbenutzbar ist (vgl. Schranken des Urheberrechts). Das Wahlwerbeplakat prägt das Foto (ist zentral platziert und dominiert), so dass es kein Beiwerk ist. Ich sehe weiterhin in diesem Foto eine Verletzung der Urheberrechte des Fotografen des Wagenknecht-Portraits. Grüße, Grand-Duc (talk) 23:55, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wenn es nur um Urheberrechte des Fotografen geht, kann ich Dir nicht folgen: das Plakat macht gerade einmal 4,67% der Bildfläche aus, das Foto knapp die Hälfte davon, also etwa 2,3%. Wenn Du das Foto vergrößerst, kannst Du erkennen, dass das Wagenknecht-Foto leicht überbelichtet und leicht unscharf ist.. Mit diesem Foto eines Fotos kann man also nichts Vernünftiges anfangen. Das Foto dominiert auch nicht das Bild, das tut die rote Hintergrundfarbe, die die Kennfarbe der Partei DIE LINKE ist. Im Fokus (talk) 23:17, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Das Verhältnis der Fläche des Plakats zur Gesamtgröße ist sehr nachrangig bei der Bestimmung der Beiwerkseigenschaft. Weil dein Bild klar erkennbar ein Foto eines Werbeplakats ist (Du hast es ja auch schon so benannt! - eine Umbenennung würde aber trotzdem nicht helfen), ist das besagte Plakat eben kein Beiwerk (lies den Abschnitt "Voraussetzungen" im verlinkten Artikel). Auch die technische Qualität der Reproduktion ist unwesentlich. Grüße, Grand-Duc (talk) 05:05, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Election posters are most likely not covered unter COM:FOP#Germany, as they are not permanently displayed in public places, only for the limited time frame around an election. A German High court case got a ruling against the application of the FoP in the substantially comparable case of the Wrapped Reichstag (Bundesgerichtshof, 2002, cf. Verhüllter Reichstag#Bildrechte). At least photographs of people or depictions of concise objects are best seen as copyrighted (precautionay principle). Grand-Duc (talk) 18:39, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Lieber Großherzog, ich bevorzuge unsere gemeinsame Muttersprache Deutsch, denn außer Dir und mir wird sich vermutlich kein Schwein für diese Diskussion interessieren. Seit fast vier Jahren hat niemand, auch nicht Kai Entian Anstoß genommen, warum auch? Er wollte ja bekannt werden. Es handelt sich hier auch nicht um ein Kunstwerk wie beim verhüllten Reichstag. Das Vorsichtsprinzip ("im Zweifelsfall dagegen") aber ist leider wie in der deutschen Bürokratie, die deshalb mit ihrer Unbeweglichkeit das Land erstickt, auch bei den für Löschungen autorisierten Admins weit verbreitet, getreu dem schönen alten Motto: "Das haben wie schon immer so gemacht".
Entschuldige, aber alle diese User werden mir fremd wie die Taliban bleiben, die, statt z.B. Katalogisierungen oder Beschreibungen zu verbessern, ihr Vergnügen darin finden, sich (siehe Deine Username-Interpretation) raubvogelartig auf Fotos zu stürzen, die nur lokal beachtet friedlich ihr Nischendasein fristen und wohl nie irgendwelchen Ärger auslösen werden. Hättest auch drüber hinwegsehen können. Ich fand das Plakat witzig, Der Witz verbraucht sich natürlich auf Dauer, insofern wäre der Verlust verschmerzbar. Da bald wieder Wahlen sind, werde ich gerne für (dann legalen) Nachschub sorgen. Dann hast Du einige Monate später auch wieder was zu melden.
Election posters are most likely not covered unter COM:FOP#Germany, as they are not permanently displayed in public places, only for the limited time frame around an election. A German High court case got a ruling against the application of the FoP in the substantially comparable case of the Wrapped Reichstag (Bundesgerichtshof, 2002, cf. Verhüllter Reichstag#Bildrechte). At least photographs of people or depictions of concise objects are best seen as copyrighted (precautionay principle).
The nominated files have in common that they contain posters with depictions of people or objects that are neither De minimis nor simple geometric symbols, typefaces or colours. The files that are not nominated do not constitute, in my opinion, possible copyright infringements as the depicted posters are only build of writing, colours or simple shapes. This kind of graphics cannot be copyrighted as they are below the needed threshold of originality. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 12:38, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
These four images were taken from a social media page of a professional photographer with the watermark cropped out. This combined with some minor additional artifacts and the rarely used CC0 license leaves me to believe this is a copyright violation. --Realmartcraft (talk) 22:29, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Unused low quality image of nondescript signs, no context, no educational use, out of scope. (Disclosure: it is now unused because I removed it from w:2018 Outback Bowl where it had no real relevance. --P 1 9 9✉22:41, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Likely not own works: mostly low-res/web-size images with disparate quality and styles, missing or inconsistent EXIF data or credit to someone else (File:Entrée du lycée Nelson Mandela.jpg credited to "Author SNN").
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.
Likely not own works: low-res/web-size images with disparate quality and styles, missing or inconsistent EXIF data; many taken from FB as per EXIF data.
Unused poor photo of nondescript wall, no context, no educational use, little meaningful distinguishable and unusable, out of scope. P 1 9 9✉23:22, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. WestVirginiaWX (talk) 21:34, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
Keep: Per the disclaimer linked at the bottom on the webpage, "The information on National Weather Service (NWS) Web pages are in the public domain, unless specifically noted otherwise, and may be used without charge for any lawful purpose...The information on National Weather Service Web servers and Web sites is in the public domain, unless specifically annotated otherwise, and may be used freely by the public." Given this disclaimer, several reliable source media outlets use the photograph under a public domain license, even citing NWS or NOAA as the source for the image including: The Philadelphia Inquirer, Cleveland, US Tornadoes, and funny enough, the Ohio State Government uses the photo, citing the source as NWS. If the Ohio State government is using the photograph & says NWS is the source, it is public domain. WeatherWriter (talk) 23:50, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
.svg/15px-Pictogram_voting_comment_(orange).svg.png)
Comment I must take issue with the allegation against me, "The closing admin admitted that the last DR had been improperly closed by counting !votes instead of applying copyright law and Commons policy." I closed it according the information I had in front of me in the deletion request itself. I was at the time unaware of Commons:Requests for comment/Third-party images published by the National Weather Service and the listing did nothing to make me aware of the existence of such additional discussion elsewhere. As I stated on my talk page [3] "If there are other factors &/or you think my closure was wrong, I have no objection to reopening discussion." If the user has issues with me I suggest they bring it to my talk page, or if they think appropriate start a listing about me at Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems. Now if you please let's get back to discussing the copyright status of images without personal snark. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 14:36, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
.jpeg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_01.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
_colorized_opening_title.png){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
![1.87 File:Rwanda Kingdom in "1896".jpg](#File:Rwanda_Kingdom_in_"1896".jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
![1.154 File:20040514 large hail 5.25".jpg](#File:20040514_large_hail_5.25".jpg){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
_by_DCB.jpg){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpeg){kind=link}
.jpeg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpeg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_01.jpg){kind=link}
_01.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
_01.jpg){kind=link}
._Фигурка_кролика.webp){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
_pic._a1a_Photography_by_David_Adam_Kess).jpg){kind=link}
_El_Panecillo,_Quito_(at_night)_pic._a1a.jpg){kind=link}
_El_Panecillo,_Quito_(at_night).jpg){kind=link}
_pic_bb8.jpg){kind=link}
_pic._a1a.jpg){kind=link}
_(Photography_by_David_Adam_Kess)_pic_bb8.jpg){kind=link}
_(Photography_by_David_Adam_Kess).jpg){kind=link}
_pic_b8_(Photography_by_David_Adam_Kess).jpg){kind=link}
_pic_bb8_(Photography_by_David_Adam_Kess).jpg){kind=link}
_pic_bb8_Author_David_Adam_Kess.jpg){kind=link}
_pic_bb8a_(Photography_by_David_Adam_Kess).jpg){kind=link}
_pic_bb8g1.jpg){kind=link}
_pic_bb8g2.jpg){kind=link}
_pic_bb8g3.jpg){kind=link}
_pic_bb8g4.jpg){kind=link}
_pic_bb8g5.jpg){kind=link}
_pic_bbbaa_(Photography_by_David_Adam_Kess).jpg){kind=link}
_pic._a1a_Photography_by_David_Adam_Kess.jpg){kind=link}
_pic._aao1.jpg){kind=link}
_pic._aao1a.jpg){kind=link}
_pic._aao1bb.jpg){kind=link}
_pic._aao2.jpg){kind=link}
_pic._aao3.jpg){kind=link}
_pic._aao3a.jpg){kind=link}
_pic._aao3b.jpg){kind=link}
_pic._bb8_(Photography_by_David_Adam_Kess).jpg){kind=link}
_pic._bb8_Photography_by_David_Adam_Kess.jpg){kind=link}
_pic._bbo1.jpg){kind=link}
_pic.a1a1.jpg){kind=link}
_pic.a1a2.jpg){kind=link}
_pic.a1a3.jpg){kind=link}
_pic.a1ao.jpg){kind=link}
_pic.a1aoa.jpg){kind=link}
_pic.a1aoaa.jpg){kind=link}
_pic.a1aob.jpg){kind=link}
_pic.a1aobb.jpg){kind=link}
_pic.a1aoo.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_01.jpg){kind=link}
_02.jpg){kind=link}
_03.jpg){kind=link}
_04.jpg){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.png&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
_colorized_opening_title.png){kind=link}
_colorized_opening_title.png&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
_colorized_opening_title.png){kind=link}
_colorized_opening_title.png){kind=link}
_colorized_opening_title.png&action=edit§ion=T-2){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
.svg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
![16:18, 3 September 2024 (UTC)](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/2024/09/06#c-Adygrafix250-20240903161800-File:Rwanda_Kingdom_in_"1896".jpg){kind=link}
![07:07, 6 September 2024 (UTC)](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/2024/09/06#c-Adygrafix250-20240906070700-File:Rwanda_Kingdom_in_"1896".jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-2){kind=link}
I withdraw my nomination -- I just found the same page as WeatherWriter. Unambiguously PD. --Rlandmann (talk) 20:49, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
![22:26, 6 September 2024 (UTC)](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/2024/09/06#c-Rlandmann-20240906222600-File:20040514_large_hail_5.25".jpg){kind=link}
![12:14, 6 September 2024 (UTC)](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/2024/09/06#c-Rlandmann-20240906121400-File:20040514_large_hail_5.25".jpg){kind=link}
Abstain pending further information – I think this is a particular image that we should try to contact the NWS on for clarification. Will hold off on a !vote until that is done. Especially given how notable the image is. Hurricane Clyde 🌀my talk page! 12:45, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
Ticket:2024090710006116 has been received regarding to file(s) mentioned here. --Krdbot 18:01, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
.png){kind=link}
.png&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
Question can this be considered an ephemeral work in Germany?
_by_DCB.jpg){kind=link}
_by_DCB.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
_by_DCB.jpg){kind=link}
_Anti-Wahlplakat_563.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.png&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
