Commons:Deletion requests/2024/08/29 - Wikimedia Commons


Article Images

Out of scope: unused, heavily filtered photos, mostly of landscapes and outdoor subjects, batch imported from Flickr. Some of these may be of notable subjects, but the "watercolor" filter that's been applied to all of them makes them unsuitable for educational use. (They don't even look like watercolors; it's really more of a "posterize" filter.)

Omphalographer (talk) 00:51, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment The postprocessing is annoying, and I wouldn't strenuously object to any of these being deleted, but I also wouldn't object if anyone feels some of these are worth saving. I haven't the patience to go through them all, but for example I could imagine keeping File:BOULDER MT, UT - 2016-09-30 fall color -22b (31659772705).jpg or File:INDIAN RIVER REC AREA NATURE TRAIL(11-01-2016) indian river, alexander state forest, evangeline parish, la -20 (31247016410).jpg. - Jmabel ! talk 02:07, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Even those images don't look very good up close - the thumbnails look kind of okay because the effects of the filter are blurred out, but it falls apart on closer inspection. The second one in particular has weird colored halos around the leaves. Omphalographer (talk) 03:24, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  Comment I agree with Jmabel sentiment here, some of the images might be usable or even useful even if only to demonstrate what the Photoshop "watercolor" filter/tool does to images. So, the images could simply demonstrate the technical possibilities and limitations of said filter/tool. I also uploaded a similar set of photos for the Canon EOS 250D camera to demonstrate its "creativity mode": File:Tagetes taken with Canon EOS 250D (blue filter) (20240707200421).jpg, File:Tagetes taken with Canon EOS 250D (old-style photograph effect) (20240707200039).jpg, File:Tagetes taken with Canon EOS 250D (aquarelle effect - hue 2) (20240707200308).jpg — that last one may not even be anything close to an "aquarelle" painting, but that's what the Canon camera calls this filter anyways. Though my set probably makes it easier to serve an educational or demonstrative purpose because it's always the same motive of flowers, just with different filter. Still, I think those Photoshop images can be used in a similar way, but there's probably no need to have this many of them. For illustration purposes one could pick one example for "Photoshop's watercolor effect applied on landscape", "... applied on people", "... applied on buildings/structures", "... applied on flowers". Something along those lines. Nakonana (talk) 11:59, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A note on those images that the result doesn't look much like watercolors but more like posterization might even increase the educational value of the images, because now we'd not only have an illustration of Photoshop's watercolor tool but also one on posterization. Which would also help explaining the techniques to make such images or the technological aspects behind the watercolor filter. Nakonana (talk) 12:05, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This makes sense to me. Keep a few as examples. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:47, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If there's a need for sample files to demonstrate image filters, surely it'd be easier (and have greater educational value) to create new ones, rather than trying to "reverse-engineer" samples from this set? Using these images as samples has the huge disadvantage that we don't have the source image, so we can't demonstrate what the original looked like or what the filter looks like with different settings. Omphalographer (talk) 19:58, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps. I see your point. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:52, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image is poor quality due to blur. File:Bicycles Panhandle Plains Museum Canyon Texas 2024.jpg shows the equivalent information. Nv8200p (talk) 00:49, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Keep not a valid reason to delete. While not great, it doesn’t mean it should be deleted, people can choose what they want to use/view. Bidgee (talk) 01:53, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sure it is. Commons:Deletion_policy#Redundant/bad_quality states an inferior image to an alternative version is a reason for deletion. Nv8200p (talk) 02:24, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes but “case-by-case basis” and I don’t think this file meets that. To me it seems like you want your photo to be the only one. Bidgee (talk) 04:06, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I took my image (along with some others) specifically to replace the other image because it is blurred. Nv8200p (talk) 04:19, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think in this case the photos may be similar enough to justify deleting the blurry one. The non-blurry one could have a cropped version to focus on the bike that the blurry one is focusing on. Maybe having such a crop would make it easier to judge whether the new photo would be an appropriate replacement of the old one. Nakonana (talk) 12:55, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
File:1890s Bicycle 2024.jpg is cropped to focus on the same bike. Nv8200p (talk) 00:57, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This appears sufficiently creative enough for protection in its home country, the United Kingdom. In particular, look at the extension of the arm of the "T" and the tail (?) on the "A". See COM:TOO United Kingdom and refer to the case concerning en:File:EDGE magazine (logo).svg. GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 01:58, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Quien es? 181.203.85.191 02:24, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Derechos de autor sobre la foto misma 181.203.85.191 02:26, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Quien es? 181.203.85.191 02:28, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This image of an event that happened on April 19, 2024 was re-tweeted on the @NWSStLouis X stream[1]

The original tweet[2] was by Byron Hurley (@ByronNatureMan).

There is no claim that he was acting as an employee of the US federal government, or that the photo was ineligible for copyright for any other reason. Therefore, as a photo taken in the United States after 1989, copyright existed from the moment it was taken.

A re-tweet by the NWS does not claim or imply that the photographer transferred his rights into the public domain or published this image under a free license.

Indeed, later in the same thread, multiple media outlets including @WeatherNation, KMOV, and @FOXWeatherDesk ask for permission to re-publish the image, to which he replies every time, "DM me for licensing"

This is clearly not a free image. Rlandmann (talk) 03:21, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Closing admins should familiarise themselves with the evidence and discussions at this RfC when closing this request.
  Delete per precautionary principle. Hurricane Clyde 🌀my talk page! 10:58, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This image was published on X on April 17, 2024 by Owen Szarley (@OwenWxIllinois) . [3]

In the thread that follows, @NWSQuadCities asks "Hi Owen. Would you be alright if we use this photo in our post event graphics and web page?"[4]

to which Szarley replies, "Yes of course with credit!"[5]

This does not place the image into the Public Domain, but does license NWS Quad Cities to re-use the photo " in our post event graphics and web page" , on the condition that credit is given.

NWSQuadCities then reposted the image, with the credit "Photo: Owen Szarley"[6]

In this rare example where we can actually see the license contract between photographer and the NWS, we can see specifically what the photographer agreed to: and it's not the Public Domain nor a free license.

As an image created in the United States after 1989, copyright was created the moment the image was. Rlandmann (talk) 03:41, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Closing admins should familiarise themselves with the evidence and discussions at this RfC when closing this request.
  Strong delete as this is a possible copyright violation. Beyond PRP. Hurricane Clyde 🌀my talk page! 11:06, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

While this is a still from a YouTube video with a Creative Commons licence, the description of the video on YouTube includes this text "DISCLAIMER: This channel is NOT the official channel of the Australian Parliament... REAL SOURCE: http://parlview.aph.gov.au/browse.php". The APH website, invoked as the "real source", uploads under a CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 Deed licence, which is not suitable for Wikimedia Commons Neegzistuoja (talk) 04:42, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No FoP for 2D works in the United States A1Cafel (talk) 04:56, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP We have had discussions about this in the past. Architectural elements/design versus artwork. It is a vague and understandable error, as buildings nowadays are void of design elements. Back in the 1900s, in the City Beautiful Movement, while famous artists did signature artwork pieces (and copyrighted), much of was looked at as design that was simply part of the building. In the future, as I have requested before, please provide your own rationale rather than just a FoP template. I consider doing such an abuse of power. While many are FoP can be obvious copyright violations many others are not. If you cannot be bothered to provide your own comments to defend your actions you should really reconsider how you are doing what you are doing. This is not about racking up statics for most edits. Myotus (talk) 16:59, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  Comment The photo, as far as I can tell, shows animal "sculptures" as part of a fence. I wouldn't call that a 2D work, because a fence is 3D and the animal "sculptures" aren't just painted on it, so they are also 3D works. So the nomination is a bit confusing. However, the defense above is equally confusing because the image isn't showing a building? It's a fence? So, the question is: what's the FoP's stance on fences with artistic elements? Are fences utilitarian per se? Or are fences with clear decorative elements protected like sculptures or some other type of artwork? Nakonana (talk) 14:07, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also no FOP for 3D works in the United States. --A1Cafel (talk) 03:34, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What about the utalitarian aspect? Are fences considered art work or utalitarian? The photo shows an integral part of a fence — it could be seen as art or "just a fence". Nakonana (talk) 10:52, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There might be a stronger case for A1Cafel if there were consistency in what is nominated for deletion. There appears to be a strong bias to call architectural design elements using recognizable images "art" and nominate them for deletion but to completely ignore abstract architectural elements called "art" that are tied to an artist. See "Hive (artwork)" which has been posted on the Commons for 12 years as a case in point. Additionally, it is concerning, at least in the US, that states considered to be part of the fly-over country are the ones that usually have their photos targeted for deletion, while coastal states, especially those of NYC, are often left untouched. Again see Hive (artwork) as well as File:Albemarle Playground td (2023-04-29) 06.jpg and File:Community Garden Fence Art (14645742175).jpg and File:Kissena Park. Train on entrance fence. 20200920 144355.jpg and even File:Brooklyn Bears Communtiy Garden 4.jpg (that also has a billboard violating copyright). As far as Wikpedia's WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument, I do prefer to reframe it as Wikipedia's "Do as a say not as I do" rule for the privileged so they can keep photos of their interests (usually white, male and urban). Myotus (talk) 03:01, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files uploaded by User:Devangae200

edit

All these images are claimed to be own work- however, several have artist credits within the image themselves. They uploader added them while editing a now-deleted Wikipedia page, while adding several text-based copyright violations. Based on a post they made on their enWiki account, they would have likely been very young at the time some of the photographs were taken, making the own work claim on those suspect.

Permission may perhaps be plausible, given they claimed to be a student volunteer, but a student volunteer does not have the power to unilaterally donate their group's works to Commons. --GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 05:59, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright Sudeep160 (talk) 06:39, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright Sudeep160 (talk) 06:40, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This image was sourced from the w:NOAA journal w:Storm Data, Volume 39, number 5, May 1997.[7], page 6.

This photo was taken in the United States in May 1997 by Troy Kimmel, KimCo Meteorological Services, Austin, TX. There is no claim or suggestion that he was working as an employee of the US federal government or that this image was ineligible for copyright for any other reason. Therefore, as an image created in the US after 1989, copyright came into being as soon as the image was made.

The submission guidelines of the journal (page 2) state:

"The editor of STORM DATA solicits your help in acquiring photographs (prints or slides; black and white, or color), maps, clippings, etc. of significant or unusual weather events (past or present). These could be for use in the "Outstanding Storms of the Month or "Et Cetera sections of STORM DATA. We request our subscribers or other interested persons to mail such items to: [address] Any such items received by the editor will be for use in STORM DATA only. Any other use will be with the permission of the owner of said items." (emphasis mine).

We have no evidence that the copyright holder permitted any further use beyond publication in Storm Data, let alone surrendered their rights into the public domain. Rlandmann (talk) 07:02, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Closing admins should familiarise themselves with the evidence and discussions at this RfC when closing this request.
  Delete per precautionary principle. Hurricane Clyde 🌀my talk page! 11:01, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the disclaimer. Sir MemeGod ._. (talk - contribs) 23:26, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like you might have forgotten the part of the disclaimer that reads "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." And also that the NWS generally just captions works under third-party copyrights as "Courtesy of..." or "Photo by..." (examples), as they did here. That reading of the disclaimer only works if (a) you deliberately choose not read any more than one sentence of it, and (b) deliberately ignore all the evidence of how the NWS has generally applied captions to images. --Rlandmann (talk) 00:21, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This image was sourced from the w:NOAA journal w:Storm Data, Volume 39, number 5, May 1997.[8], page 5.

This photo was taken in the United States in May 1997 by Charlotte Vancil. There is no claim or suggestion that she was working as an employee of the US federal government or that this image was ineligible for copyright for any other reason. Therefore, as an image created in the US after 1989, copyright came into being as soon as the image was made.

The submission guidelines of the journal (page 2) state:

"The editor of STORM DATA solicits your help in acquiring photographs (prints or slides; black and white, or color), maps, clippings, etc. of significant or unusual weather events (past or present). These could be for use in the "Outstanding Storms of the Month or "Et Cetera sections of STORM DATA. We request our subscribers or other interested persons to mail such items to: [address] Any such items received by the editor will be for use in STORM DATA only. Any other use will be with the permission of the owner of said items." (emphasis mine).

We have no evidence that the copyright holder permitted any further use beyond publication in Storm Data, let alone surrendered their rights into the public domain. Rlandmann (talk) 07:05, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Closing admins should familiarise themselves with the evidence and discussions at this RfC when closing this request.
  Delete per precautionary principle. Hurricane Clyde 🌀my talk page! 11:00, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the disclaimer. Sir MemeGod ._. (talk - contribs) 23:26, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like you might have forgotten the part of the disclaimer that reads "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." And also that the NWS generally just captions works under third-party copyrights as "Courtesy of..." or "Photo by..." (examples), as they did here. That reading of the disclaimer only works if (a) you deliberately choose not read any more than one sentence of it, and (b) deliberately ignore all the evidence of how the NWS has generally applied captions to images. --Rlandmann (talk) 00:21, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Edit: 25 September -- it also has an alternative version here: File:1997 Jarrell tornado closeup darkened.jpg

This image was sourced from the w:NOAA journal w:Storm Data, Volume 39, number 5, May 1997.[9], page 1.

This photo was taken in the United States in May 1997 by Scott Beckwith of Jarrell Farm Supply, Jarrell Texas. There is no claim or suggestion that he was working as an employee of the US federal government or that this image was ineligible for copyright for any other reason. Therefore, as an image created in the US after 1989, copyright came into being as soon as the image was made.

The submission guidelines of the journal (page 2) state:

"The editor of STORM DATA solicits your help in acquiring photographs (prints or slides; black and white, or color), maps, clippings, etc. of significant or unusual weather events (past or present). These could be for use in the "Outstanding Storms of the Month or "Et Cetera sections of STORM DATA. We request our subscribers or other interested persons to mail such items to: [address] Any such items received by the editor will be for use in STORM DATA only. Any other use will be with the permission of the owner of said items." (emphasis mine).

We have no evidence that the copyright holder permitted any further use beyond publication in Storm Data, let alone surrendered their rights into the public domain. Rlandmann (talk) 07:07, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Closing admins should familiarise themselves with the evidence and discussions at this RfC when closing this request.
  Delete per precautionary principle. Hurricane Clyde 🌀my talk page! 11:02, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the disclaimer. Sir MemeGod ._. (talk - contribs) 19:54, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This file was initially tagged by Sahaib as no permission (No permission) Krd 07:12, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This file was initially tagged by Sahaib as no permission (No permission) Krd 07:13, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This file was initially tagged by Sahaib as no permission (No permission) Krd 07:14, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This file was initially tagged by Sahaib as no permission (No permission) Krd 07:14, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This file was initially tagged by Sahaib as no permission (No permission) Krd 07:14, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1969 photos, unlikely to be own work

Gbawden (talk) 07:22, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

yes - they are my photos of my father, taken by my mother and gifted to me. Bernadenemvoss (talk) 07:41, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This image was taken in the United States on May 27, 1997, by Scott Beckwith of Jarrell Farm Supply, Jarrell Texas. There is no claim or suggestion that he was working as an employee of the US federal government or that this image was ineligible for copyright for any other reason. Therefore, as an image created in the US after 1989, copyright came into being as soon as the image was made.

This image has been uploaded to Commons based on a rationale that it is covered by the site disclaimer for weather.gov and/or the submission guidelines for the Sioux City NWS office.

This file is not hosted on weather.gov, so the disclaimer for that site does not appear to apply, and there is no evidence to connect it with the Sioux City office image submission guidelines, so this rationale does not appear to apply either. Rlandmann (talk) 07:35, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Closing admins should familiarise themselves with the evidence and discussions at this RfC when closing this request.
  Delete per precautionary principle. Hurricane Clyde 🌀my talk page! 11:01, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the disclaimer. Sir MemeGod ._. (talk - contribs) 23:26, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like you might have forgotten the part of the disclaimer that reads "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." And also that the NWS generally just captions works under third-party copyrights as "Courtesy of..." or "Photo by..." (examples), as they did here. That reading of the disclaimer only works if (a) you deliberately choose not read any more than one sentence of it, and (b) deliberately ignore all the evidence of how the NWS has generally applied captions to images. --Rlandmann (talk) 00:21, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am unable to verify the free license claim. © TSE - Tribunal Superior Eleitoral at source

Gbawden (talk) 07:36, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. In order to clarify and avoid confusion, the template on most of these recently uploaded files on Wikipedia for the 2024 and earlier elections indicates that the pictures are from the TSE Dataset Open Source (Portal de Dados Abertos do TSE) and do not infringe any copyright rules on Wikimedia Commons. Many of these pictures are the same ones used for candidates from the 2022, 2020, 2018, 2016, and even 2012 elections or earlier.

The examples of pictures you listed for deletion on my Talk Page on Wikimedia Commons come from the following pages:

Most pictures licensed by the Superior Electoral Court (TSE) of Brazil use the CC BY 4.0 license. You can find information about this license on the file pages:

Since the deadline for registering candidacies with the Superior Electoral Court of Brazil ended on August 16, 2024, the .rar file containing the candidates' pictures has been uploaded to the TSE Dataset for 2024 Candidates. You can download the .rar file with these images from the Explore menu (Explorar). Simply download the .rar file for the state you are interested in and locate the pictures using the ID number and candidate number listed on the DivulgaCand website.

To demonstrate this, you can find the .rar file containing pictures of candidates running in the 2024 Curitiba mayoral election and other mayoral elections in the state of Paraná under PR - Fotos de candidatos (PR stands for Paraná, with Curitiba being the capital city). After downloading the .rar file, most images will be labeled with "FPR" (indicating Paraná). For other states, such as São Paulo, the file codes will start with "FSP" (for São Paulo), "FMG" (for Minas Gerais), and so on. For example, Tiago Chico’s picture can be found in the .rar file as FPR160002029786_div.jpg (where 160002029786 is the unique identifier for his candidacy) on the same link mentioned.

I uploaded these files because I believe they are licensed under CC BY 4.0, a license that is permitted for use on Wikipedia. I hope this clarifies why I think these pictures are allowed to be hosted on Wikimedia Commons.

Thank you very much. Sailoratlantis (talk) 08:27, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Additional source that may prove the Wikimedia Commons license I'm referring to:

Instrução Normativa nº 8, de 20 de novembro de 2020: This document from the Superior Electoral Court (Tribunal Superior Eleitoral - TSE) outlines regulations for the Biblioteca Digital da Justiça Eleitoral (BDJE) [Digital Library of Electoral Justice in English] and confirms that content in this repository can use Creative Commons licenses, including the Creative Commons 4.0 International License (CC BY 4.0). This license allows for sharing, adapting, and commercial use, provided proper attribution is given.

For more details, you may refer to the document here (note that the full document is in Portuguese and may require translation for full understanding).

Unfortunately, the link listed on the style guide for the template TSE-Dados-Abertos (found on this image) is now returning a 404 error ("404 Erro! Página não encontrada."), and I am unable to locate a copy of the PDF file that specifies the license details. Despite the broken link, the information in the document may confirm that the images I've uploaded to Wikimedia Commons are under the CC BY 4.0 license as per TSE guidelines and Wikimedia Commons' licensing requirements. Sailoratlantis (talk) 09:10, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Termo de Autorização para Publicação na BDJE (Authorization Term for Publication in the Digital Library of Electoral Justice of Brazil) is a formal authorization document used by the Biblioteca Digital da Justiça Eleitoral (BDJE) (Digital Library of Electoral Justice of Brazil) to publish and make documents publicly available. Here’s a breakdown of the relevant sections in the context of the Creative Commons BY 4.0 license:
  1. Authorization for Publication:
    • The document grants BDJE permission to freely publish and distribute the mentioned documents according to the Creative Commons 4.0 International License (CC BY 4.0) as declared by the author or institution.
  2. License Conditions:
    • Adaptations: The document allows for adaptations of the work to be shared, with the option for adaptations to be shared under the same terms.
    • Commercial Use: The document specifies whether the work can be used commercially.
    • Copyright Protection: It confirms that the work remains protected by copyright and other applicable laws. Any use outside the terms of the license or copyright law is prohibited.
  3. Authorization Details:
    • The form includes fields for the location and date of signing, as well as the signature of the author or representative, ensuring that the permissions granted are clear and legally authorized.
This formal authorization ensures that the use of the works aligns with the Creative Commons terms and BDJE regulations. Despite the broken link to the original style guide, this document confirms that the images uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, which follow these guidelines, are indeed licensed under CC BY 4.0.
I hope this additional information clarifies the licensing status of the images in question.
Thank you very much. Sailoratlantis (talk) 09:19, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Sailoratlantis If the license is on a different page you need to provide that link under the permission field, especially if there are conflicting license claims like this. I have added the link to the permission section on these files for you Gbawden (talk) 09:34, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello,
I have a question regarding the use of links from the Superior Electoral Court (TSE) platform, such as the one provided from DivulgaCand (TSE’s platform for candidates). Would including this link in the source section, along with a statement that the content is from the TSE platform (Portal de Dados Abertos do TSE - TSE Open Data Portal), be sufficient to demonstrate that the images are licensed under Creative Commons 4.0 (CC BY 4.0)? I understand that the TSE platform typically uses this license for its content.
Thank you! Sailoratlantis (talk) 09:45, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  Keep I checked File:Carmem Julia (foto oficial para o TSE).jpg following roughly the steps from Sailoratlantis . This particular image can be found inside the ZIP file (warning 250 MB!) from https://dadosabertos.tse.jus.br/dataset/candidatos-2024/resource/4ca481ad-e4cf-4f49-ac80-1a37a331467e. The file name is FRN200002054424_div.jpg and the ZIP file. The link to the ZIP files states clearly that the dataset has a CC-BY 4.0 license. As all the other images come from the same source, have the same format, and size. I'm pretty sure the same analysis can be made. The problem is that there are many of such ZIP files under https://dadosabertos.tse.jus.br/dataset/candidatos-2024. Günther Frager (talk) 17:12, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Another point – One of the main reasons I didn't download the .rar file to check Tiago Chico's ID link and associate the identifier with the file is that the .rar file wasn't even available on the Portal de Dados Abertos do TSE before August 16, 2024, which was the deadline to register candidacies. Additionally, these files are quite large— the São Paulo file, for example, might exceed 1GB due to the 644 cities in the state. Before August 16, you could only find pictures of these candidates via their candidacy links from the end of July to August 5, 2024, when parties first registered their candidates, but not all of them were available until the deadline.
I believe it’s important to include the ID in the file name (e.g., FPR02262665_div.jpg—just an example, not a real one) to avoid licensing issues and to allow people to verify the picture in the .rar file. Sailoratlantis (talk) 20:58, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  Keep Everything from this portal is under Template:TSE-Dados-Abertos. Erick Soares3 (talk) 22:37, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Sailoratlantis Please use this template on TSE uploads in future Gbawden (talk) 10:58, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm already using the template TSE-Dados-Abertos since my first uploads; you can check it out on most of the uploaded pictures of the TSE by me on Wikimedia Commons or on the history log of most of these files. Sailoratlantis (talk) 17:31, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

While ETV shared the YouTube video under CC, it is immediately unclear whether ETV has the necessary rights to the images it shows thru out the video to share under CC, for example the nominated depiction from ANI, thus making the derivative work ineligible for Commons -- DaxServer (talk) 08:09, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

+ crop at File:Muzaffarpur Shelter Homes case SC asks why Bihar ex Minister Manju Verma Not Arrested Brajesh Thakur (cropped).jpg -- DaxServer (talk) 08:11, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Per COM:TOO United Kingdom and COM:SIG United Kingdom, this is likely original enough for copyright protection in its home country, the UK. GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 08:33, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Low res images taken in some cases from websites, File:Foodsecurity.jpg cites https://www.gardjagh.org/appropriate-conservation-methods-improve-food-security-professor-odamtten/ which gives no permission for reuse. User's other speedy deleted uploads have been found online and claimed as own work.

Belbury (talk) 08:35, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is impossible to review its license. The video is no longer available in Vimeo, also the archived versions that I checked (included the first and the last ones) also show the video is not available Günther Frager (talk) 10:21, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Delete: That was disappointing. Why couldn't the bot reviewers have passed the review process for every video instantly years ago? - THV | ♂ | U | T - 12:21, 29 August 2024 (UTC); edited: 12:34, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This file was initially tagged by Խմբագրող as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: http://bridges.rem33.com/books/Wadbolski_E2.htm, https://www.facebook.com/photo/?fbid=837179365106055&set=ecnf.100064419980397
Converted to regular DR to allow for discussion, as the Facebook-hit is from April this year, whereas our last version was uploaded in 2015, and the other "hit" does not match at all. -- Túrelio (talk) 10:31, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

in any case, it is obvious, that the file is not original and has no sources, it is just a graphic design. Խմբագրող (talk) 10:37, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The design is very old. It is a coat of arms of nobility of Georgia that took place until the 19th century when the Russian Empire conquered Georgia and all the Caucasus. It was created before the 19th century. see the coat of arms on the family postal stamp. -- Geagea (talk) 11:19, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This file was initially tagged by Խմբագրող as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: https://jenikirbyhistory.getarchive.net/topics/coats+of+arms+of+the+nobility+of+georgia, https://noev-kovcheg.ru/mag/2022-08/7766.html
Converted to regular DR to allow for discussion, as 1st hit (https://jenikirbyhistory.getarchive.net/media/melikishvili-coa-5ab0b1) is sourced to Commons (!), and 2nd hit is 7 years younger than our upload. -- Túrelio (talk) 10:34, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

in any case, it is obvious, that the file is not original and has no sources, it is just a graphic design. Խմբագրող (talk) 10:37, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  Keep? Let me try to approach this with two rationales.
  1. This the coat of arms of a (previously) governing family of Georgia and therefore their coat of arms falls under {{PD-GE-exempt|type=coats of arms}}.
  2. This is a derivative work of a work that is in the public domain (likely due to its age as the family dates back pre-1900). I have found a book published in 1998 that is tagged as Public Domain Mark 1.0 and this coat of arms is depicted in that book on page 174 (see here). There its caption says that this is the family's coat of arms "according V. Tsikhinsky" (in Russian: "по В. Цихинскому"). Page 290 provides the following information on Tsikhinsky: "Цихинский В. Кавказский гербовник. Ч.1. Тавадские роды. Пг., 1922" (Tsikhinsky V. Caucasian Armorial. Part 1. Tavad clans. Petrograd, 1922). The thing is, nothing is known about this Tsikhinsky guy. Gulordava writes (Google translated): "The Caucasian Armorial (hereinafter KG) by V. Tsikhinsky is one of the most important sources on Georgian family heraldry. It was compiled in Petrograd in 1922. Alas, nothing is known about the author himself to this day. The original manuscript is now lost, the "original" is a copy made approximately in the 80s on a copying machine and designed as a small book in hardcover. This "original" copy was given by the Abashidze family in 1993 to a prominent Georgian genealogist, now deputy chairman of the Georgian Genealogical Society (GGS) Mr. I.L. Bichikashvili. An active attempt undertaken by Mr. Bichikashvili to find the original, unfortunately, ended in vain. So, about the KG itself. Before us is the first part of the "Tavad clans" (see Fig. 1), i.e. "princely". Whether there was a second part is unknown." (quote from Гулордава Д.А. «Кавказский гербовник» В. Цихинского // Гербо-вед. – 2000. – № 44. – С. 75 https://gerboved.ru/pdf/Gulordava-2000-Tsikhinsky-pp75-87.pdf)
Does this help to source and license the coat of arms properly? Nakonana (talk) 18:32, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The same coat of arms can also be found on page 131 in an epaper published by heraldika.ge (I don't know what sort of site heraldika.ge is). I don't speak Georgian and unfortunately the document is in a format that can't be translated via machine translation, so all that I can make out of this is that it mentions the year 1864. Nakonana (talk) 19:25, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This file was initially tagged by Խմբագրող as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: https://www.pinterest.com/pin/129337820533877860/
Converted to regular DR to allow for discussion, as Pinterest-hit seems to be undated, whereas our image was uploaded already in 2009. What does the watermark say? -- Túrelio (talk) 10:44, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The watermark says "Արալեզ Aralez", where the first part is just the name Aralez in Armenian language. And: "13(?).02.2009 Gegart", with Gegart being the username of the uploader.   Keep Looks like an own work by the uploader. Nakonana (talk) 20:18, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No EXIF, possible crops of images found elsewhere online given that a version of File:Mason Thames.jpg can be found at https://i.pinimg.com/236x/3e/4f/9a/3e4f9af6b8032d778351e750f507debd.jpg with less cropping.

Belbury (talk) 11:12, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Likely copyvio. Jonteemil (talk) 11:37, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

None of evidence this city/town logo under the stated licence. Therefore missing permission. TentingZones1 (talk) 11:53, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The photo is a public domain. Look at the license.--PeterWikiSK (talk) 19:10, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

{{SD|G2}} Nagomijirap (talk) 12:00, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

copyright violation; contemporary artworks; no freedom of panorama.

Martin Sg. (talk) 12:00, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

copyright violation; contemporary artworks; no freedom of panorama. Martin Sg. (talk) 12:01, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The user uploaded it as possible self-promotion, and some content is, or may be, copyrighted and not owned by them (the Scratch Cat, which has been deleted from Commons before, an image about Geometry Dash, and the user's icon). Xeroctic (talk) 12:10, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is a watermark on the image Mostafameraji (talk) 12:41, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Mostafameraji What does this mean? Explain more! {{User|POS78}} talk 12:56, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
greetings to you
Under the photo, the profile of the photographer and the news agency is written, which is against the rules of Wikipedia. @POS78 Mostafameraji (talk) 13:31, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Mostafameraji See here and here. This image should be cropped like this image. This deletion request is invalid. {{User|POS78}} talk 13:37, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
yes exactly.
It can be cut with the wiki tool. If you cut them I will remove the request. Mostafameraji (talk) 13:43, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  Done {{User|POS78}} talk 13:59, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not delete

edit

The text on the photo was modified with the wiki-anbar tool. Please do not delete. thanks. (Mostafameraji (talk) 14:07, 29 August 2024 (UTC))[reply]

There's no evidence this photo was taken before 1957. In fact, the same photo appears in the 1980 publication 日本の経営者 : 1部上場全企業・社長の経営戦略と人物像 昭和56年版, on p. 695. 240B:253:A320:3500:AE0C:84E9:B947:9FFF 13:00, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This image was created by Sherie Zupan in July 2008 at Rolla, North Dakota. It was first published in the w:Minot Daily News in a story that also covered her encounter with the tornado.[10] The newspaper credits the photo as "submitted" by her.

Zupan was at home at the time, so evidently not an employee of the federal government performing official duties, and there is no other evidence to suggest that the image is ineligible for copyright.

As an image created in the US after 1989, Zupan owned copyright over this photo as soon as she created it. Not that it's required, but the webpage it was published on also carries the notice "© 2008 . All rights reserved" and the linked terms of service state "All information, content, services and software displayed on, transmitted through or used in connection with The Minot Daily News sites, including, but not limited to, news articles, reviews, directories, guides, text, photographs, images, illustrations, audio clips, video, html, source and object code, trademarks, logos and the like, as well as its selection and arrangement, is owned by Ogden Newspapers Inc., and its affiliated companies. You may use the Content online only, and solely for your personal, non-commercial use."

The image seems to have been picked up and syndicated by the Associated Press; for example,[11] and [12]

There is no evidence that Zupan or the AP surrendered the copyright into the public domain. With no evidence of this permission, we must delete under COM:PRP. Rlandmann (talk) 13:01, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Closing admins should familiarise themselves with the evidence and discussions at this RfC when closing this request.
  Strong delete per precautionary principle. AP as you know strictly enforces copyright and is not afraid to sue. Hurricane Clyde 🌀my talk page! 11:04, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If there is an article about the Rolla tornado; NFF could certainly apply; especially since it is available under a license that allows non-commercial use. Hurricane Clyde 🌀my talk page! 17:37, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But it don’t belong here. Hurricane Clyde 🌀my talk page! 17:37, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hate to do this, but I don't think even the rather generous FOP in the UK covers a text of this length and originality. Jmabel ! talk 13:49, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

False image (an artwork). In reality, nothing is known about surface features of this satellite, so, the image is pure fiction. Commons is for educational content, not for fakes. Sneeuwschaap (talk) 15:40, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not my own work, this image comes from another site. This file is a movie poster and is most likely copyrighted. Astrinko (talk) 16:18, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment The nominator is NOT the uploader of the file. --Rosenzweig τ 07:39, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This file was copied from my iNat observations in a time period in which the copyright settings were unintentionally changed to CC-BY. Karsten Schönherr (talk) 16:24, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Additional info: I am not the owner of this picture. I can provide you own pictures of the same species (not best quality though) if required. Karsten Schönherr (talk) 16:26, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This file was initially tagged by Nutshinou as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: per description, from 1965 Detroit Tigers Baseball Yearbook Yann (talk) 17:23, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Quite possibly in the public domain due to lack of copyright notice. Yann (talk) 17:24, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This file was initially tagged by Jonteemil as Logo Latin alphabet calligraphy would be in the public domain. What about Arabic? Yann (talk) 17:28, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

claimed free license not seen at link nor at front page of source site. Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 18:16, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

These files are arbitrarily taken from the internet without a proper reasoning for the license used. Iranian law does not rule the photographs to be in the public domain by their "date of creation," rather it is required for a PD file to be "published" +30 years ago. For these files, the information about the author, date of publication, etc. are unknown. As a result, there is no proof that PD-Iran can apply to these cases. Some are possibly not even created by Iranian artists, like the one whose author is acknowledged to be w:Harrison Forman. Per Commons:Project scope/Precautionary principle, the freedom of these files are questionable and they should be deleted.

HeminKurdistan (talk) 18:21, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    • The files you mentioned were all taken during the Iran-Iraq war, which took place over thirty years ago. It is impossible for the individuals in these photos to have taken the images after the war, as they were all killed during that conflict. The images were not arbitrarily taken; rather, by referring to the provided sources, one can obtain the necessary information regarding the photos.Moreover, the evidence that the owners of these photos were killed in the same war can be found on the Wikipedia page of each individual. Therefore, they could not have taken the images after the war, which means that the photos were taken more than thirty years ago and thus fall under PD-Iran.Harold Krabs (talk) 13:48, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      @Harold Krabs Iranian law does not assume photographs taken +30 years ago to be in the public domain unless they have been published +30 years ago. Also, the claim that the photographers are now dead is unsubstantiated and should be proved in a case by case basis. There are also many instances that the creator is not Iranian. In fact, many of these photographs are not subject to Iranian law at all, like File:محمدعلی صفا.jpg, which is taken in the United Kingdom. HeminKurdistan (talk) 17:48, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Questionable own work claim from the original uploader on en.wiki. Low-quality photograph w/o metadata. HeminKurdistan (talk) 18:24, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

wrong date, wrong author, wrong source Xocolatl (talk) 19:23, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

its literally a family's friend relalative and we know for sure all those infos are right. I can show you a pic of Otakars old military ID card. Vicdangelis (talk) 19:52, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please state the year of the military ID card. Thank you Gampe (talk) 03:07, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I already found it. --Gampe (talk) 03:15, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

wrong date - copyright violation? Xocolatl (talk) 19:27, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ce fichier est issu du profil Spotify de l'artiste, il ne s'agit pas d'un contenu libre de droit, ni d'une création personnelle de la personne l'ayant déposée. A fortiori elle rentre dans la catégorie "photographies promotionnelles" des oeuvres non tolérées sur Commons. Laudgutt (talk) 19:29, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

copyright violation, see source Xocolatl (talk) 19:34, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

wrong source Xocolatl (talk) 19:42, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Noting that Google reverse image search only finds hits for this image that were published after the image was uploaded to Commons. The provided source link, however, is indeed incorrect as it was a link to an online furniture store (I've removed it). If the image is kept, by any chance, then it should be renamed because the current name is the name of said furniture store. Nakonana (talk) 21:22, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

wrong source, spam Xocolatl (talk) 19:45, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, it's spam. The image may or may not be free, but it's used to advertise-spam random websites which are given as alleged source for the image and are used as the file name for the image. Also uploaded by newly created single purpose account. Nakonana (talk) 21:28, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

wrong date, copyright violation? Xocolatl (talk) 19:46, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The source is the Italian newspaper l'Unità and the date is circa 1989 and it is not clear if it is when it was taken or published. If it was published after March 1, 1989, then it is copyrighted in the USA due to Berne Convention. If it was published prior to that date, then its US copyright was restored in 1996 at URAA time. In both cases the photo is clearly protected in the US. Following COM:PCP we cannot keep this image. Günther Frager (talk) 20:13, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This photo was taken in Kansas in March 1990.

It was published on the front page of w:The Wichita Eagle on Wednesday, March 14, 1990 and credited to "Dave Williams/The Wichita Eagle "[13] (Williams is credited on many Wichita Eagle photos, so appears to have been staff).

There is no indication that Williams was working as an employee of the US Federal Government or that the photo is ineligible for copyright for any other reason.

As a photo taken in the US after 1989, copyright existed in this photo when it was created. However, the newspaper also included this copyright notice on page 2: "The entire contents of each issue of The Wichita Eagle are protected under the federal copyright law. Reproduction of any portion will not be permitted without our express permission."[14]

There is no evidence that the Wichita Eagle surrendered this copyright. Rlandmann (talk) 21:23, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Closing admins should familiarise themselves with the evidence and discussions at this RfC when closing this request.
  Delete per precautionary principle. Hurricane Clyde 🌀my talk page! 11:03, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per below rationale. Sir MemeGod ._. (talk - contribs) 23:32, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • At the bottom of the webpage, there is a disclaimer button. According to that (archived) general disclaimer: “The information on government servers are in the public domain, unless specifically annotated otherwise, and may be used freely by the public”.
  • For the clause of “specifically annotated otherwise”, NWS either allows the user to add a copyright “©” watermark to the image {as seen in this image, hosted on this NWS webpage} or by directly adding a copyright statement using “©” {as seen on this NWS webpage: difference between the “Tornado Photos” and “Damage” tabs}. That disclaimer is linked at the bottom of all three of the NWS webpages linked above (this image’s webpage + 2 I used as examples). To me, “specifically annotated otherwise” indicates a direct copyright (©) statement or watermark.
  • The Commons has previously (and recently) kept files based on the NWS general disclaimer. A recently closed deletion request (closed September 2024) for a file under the PD-NWS template was closed as keep with the main keep rational being the NWS general disclaimer.
  • The National Weather Service has also used this image on a post on X (formerly Twitter), with no link-based attribution as recently as March 2024.
  • The Harvey County Historical Museum (i.e. the respective local county history museum where the tornado occurred) uses this photo in this article where it is attributed “Licensed under Public Domain”.
Based on all of that evidence above, I must support keeping this photo. WeatherWriter (talk) 11:51, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Delete Taken and cropped from the player's website at https://fletcherwestphal.com/about (direct link). While the uploader is "Westphal65" there's no proof provided that this person is the copyright holder of the image and therefore has the right to release the image under the here stipulated cc-by-sa-4.0 license. Website is clearly marked as Copyright 2024, all rights reserved. Copyright violation. Hammersoft (talk) 21:52, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello --- It appears the issue for using the photo of Fletcher is a copyright. How do I show/use a photo that I have personally taken and approve its use on Wiki? Westphal65 (talk) 09:57, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
See Commons:Volunteer Response Team. --Hammersoft (talk) 11:47, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

COM:SPAM, promotional image uploaded by likely company rep; no usage outside sandbox, out of scope Gnomingstuff (talk) 21:57, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

J'ai voulu savoir comment ajouter une image sur Wikipédia par pure curiosité, il y a quelques années. Bapt hrvn (talk) 22:31, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

J'ai voulu savoir comment mettre une image sur Wikipédia par pure curiosité. Malheureusement, cela me joue des tours actuellement, et ce, même en nuisant mes projets professionnels. Merci de bien vouloir supprimer ce fichier de la plateforme Wikipédia.$ Bapt hrvn (talk) 22:32, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]