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.
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]
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]
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]
The image is your own if you made it from scratch, otherwise it is a derivative work. For the whole image to be free, both your work and the work on which it is based have to be free. A copyright notice is not necessary for a work to be copyrighted. Published works are copyrighted by default. A notice is important only if it negates the copyright or releases the work under a free license.
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]
About the Georgia Gazette link, every time a mug shot get's released on the Gazette's website, it expires after 60 days, but is archived. But you would need to pay a subscription to retrieve the archived link. But I don't think that would be necessary because you could just look up something along the lines of "Colier Hose Georgia Gazette" on Google, then click images, and you'll see the image provided that clearly shows the image of ShnaggyHose with a text below the picture showing that the mug shot was taken by the Fayette County Sheriff's Office and later released on the Georgia Gazette's website. JoleBruh (talk) 07:13, 10 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 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.
Comment I have changed the source link to a current NWS PDF which does currently host the file. I remain unsure whether this makes the image free or not, and don't have any determinative opinion on whether this file should be kept or deleted, but I did want to provide an update on this. ChrisWx ☁️ (talk - contribs) 22:48, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment In the new source found by ChrisWx, the image is unattributed. It doesn't look like the kind of images typically taken by NWS employees in the line of duty, and the earliest TinEye hits point to TV news sources KPRL11 and KTVI, the day after the image was taken. Unfortunately, these news stories don't appear to be archived, but given their publication date and the nature of the image, it's at least as likely that the NWS got it from the news media as news media got it from the NWS. Or, of course, they both got it from a common, now lost, source. In any case, we have no way of knowing this was ever released into the public domain, so I'm leaving this request open. --Rlandmann (talk) 23:11, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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]
Para el archivo: File:Tríptico Embarazo Chagas Web. 2022.pdf el el motivo de borrado no es pertinente.
Este archivo proviene de Argentina.gob.ar, cuyos contenidos se encuentran publicados bajo la licencia CC BY 4.0.
Para el resto de los documentos, tanto los autores de las obras como la persona titular de la fuente enviaron (o están en proceso de enviar) la autorización para la subida. LTrus (talk) 14:23, 17 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 deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
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]
Weak keep. It's from w:Gautala Autramghat Sanctuary, also covered here. I think it is indeed a pond, not Gautala Lake. The pond is mentioned in the Marathwada Tourism link I gave. This is not a good photo, but since it appears to be the only picture of Gautala Pond on Commons, I'd suggest it be kept and documented more usefully. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:05, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't say it's merely a derivative work of the flag. It's the combination of the football in the lower half with a maple leaf, arguably not identical to the one in the flag, in the upper halft which together make up the logo and together make up its complexity and uniqueness. Part-by-part I agree that the elements are simple but the complete work is not that simple if you ask me. Jonteemil (talk) 13:20, 9 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)
.jpg){kind=link}
_colorized_opening_title.png){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
![1.58 File:20040514 large hail 5.25".jpg](#File:20040514_large_hail_5.25".jpg){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
._Фигурка_кролика.webp){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}
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)
.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}
